Her Majesty's Attorney General v Malone

A person may be in contempt of a worldwide injunction where they have notice of its substance, even though personal service has been dispensed with. Publishing information about a person closely associated with an individual protected by the injunction may amount to indirect identification. In sentencing for contempt, the court must balance the need to uphold court orders and protect fundamental rights against the offender’s culpability, aggravating features and personal mitigation. Where the custody threshold is passed, substantial mitigation may justify a suspended committal order. A late acceptance of responsibility may attract a modest reduction in sentence.

The Attorney General applied under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 81, for the committal of Tina Malone for contempt of court. The alleged contempt concerned a 2001 injunction, made against the world and subsequently amended, prohibiting publication of information capable of identifying Jon Venables or Robert Thompson following their release under new identities.

Ms Malone had shared a Facebook post containing images, an alleged alias and information about Venables’s partner. During oral evidence she accepted the alleged contempt. The issues were whether she had sufficient notice of the injunction, whether the material indirectly identified a protected person, and what sentence and costs order should follow.

1. Contempt established. The publication of images and an alleged new name plainly contravened paragraph 1(1)(a) of the injunction. Information about Venables’s partner also contravened paragraph 1(1)(b), because identifying a person intimately associated with him could indirectly identify him or expose that person to the risks against which the injunction was directed.
2. The injunction was made against the world. Personal service on Ms Malone was unnecessary, and service was formally dispensed with. The relevant question was whether she had notice of the substance of the injunction when she shared the post. Her evidence showed that she knew that Venables and Thompson had been given anonymity to protect them from being hounded and attacked. Her acceptance of responsibility established the contempt.
3. In applying the sentencing principles set out in Attorney General v McKeag and Barker [2019] EWHC 241 (QB), the court considered the purpose of the injunction, the potential risk to Venables, Thompson and associated persons, the indirect identification of another person, defiant press comments and Ms Malone’s initial failure to deal properly with the allegations.
4. Important mitigation included the single publication, the absence of any previous breach, the lack of encouragement to others, Ms Malone’s troubled mental health and family circumstances, her caring responsibilities, charitable work, positive character and expression of sorrow. Her late acceptance of responsibility justified a modest reduction.
5. The custody threshold was passed, but the personal mitigation justified a suspended committal order. Ms Malone was committed to prison for eight months, suspended for two years. Any further contempt during that period could activate the sentence. Costs were awarded to the Attorney General, summarily assessed at £10,000.