Centek Holdings Ltd & Anor v Giles

Contempt of court is serious because deliberate breach harms the authority of the court and the rule of law, independently of the precise commercial loss caused. Where multiple contempts are interconnected, the court may impose a single sentence. In assessing sentence, the court should identify the gravity of the contempts, apply the custody threshold where appropriate, allow credit for admissions and genuine mitigation, and distinguish punitive or deterrent imprisonment from coercive imprisonment intended to secure compliance. A late admission and incomplete disclosure may substantially reduce mitigation. An unsuspended sentence is justified where the contemnor deliberately flouts an important order over time and has not made full and frank disclosure.

The claimants sought the committal of their former employee, Tristram Giles, for multiple breaches of an injunction and for false affidavits sworn in purported compliance with it. The alleged contempts concerned deletion and non-disclosure of confidential material, failure to preserve devices and accounts, breach of restrictive covenants, and misleading evidence.

Mr Giles admitted all the contempts. The court therefore determined the appropriate punishment and the mitigation available, including the effect of his admissions, apology, personal circumstances and asserted inability to purge his contempt.

1. Contempt established and sentence assessed. The court was sure that each alleged contempt had been committed and accepted the admissions. The contempts were interconnected, so a single sentence was appropriate.
2. Seriousness. Court orders must be obeyed. The order was clear, unequivocal, prospective and supported by a penal notice. Mr Giles’s repeated breaches, including deliberate destruction of material and false evidence, were deliberate and involved deception of a high order. The relevant harm was the deliberate breach of the order and the resulting damage to the authority of the court and the rule of law. The precise extent of commercial loss did not augment the seriousness of the contempt.
3. Starting point and mitigation. The custody threshold was met. Applying the approach in Financial Conduct Authority v McKendrick [2019] EWCA Civ 524, a starting point of 20 months’ imprisonment was appropriate. The maximum term was not confined to the very worst imaginable contempt. Mr Giles’s admissions and personal and family circumstances reduced the sentence to 14 months, but the admissions were relatively late and his apology was undermined by his continuing lack of full and frank acknowledgment.
4. Punitive and coercive elements. The sentence comprised eight months punitive or deterrent imprisonment and six months coercive imprisonment. The coercive element reflected the continuing importance of full and candid disclosure to purge the contempt.
5. Suspension and order. Suspension was inappropriate because the order was important, the breaches were prolonged and deliberate, and Mr Giles had not used the opportunity to make full disclosure. He was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, unsuspended. Six months could be remitted if he purged his contempt by making the required full and frank disclosure. He was entitled to unconditional release after serving half the sentence under section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Not stated in the judgment; this was a first-instance committal and sentencing decision.