Solicitor General v McGuire

A deliberate breach of an injunction protecting individuals from identification and vigilantism is a serious contempt because the principal gravity lies in the risk of harm, even where no actual harm is proved. Knowledge of the injunction and deliberate contravention may establish contempt to the criminal standard. The custody threshold may be crossed notwithstanding remorse and mitigation. An immediate custodial sentence will ordinarily be appropriate for deliberate breaches of such injunctions, although suspension may be justified in an exceptional case after considering the seriousness of the breach, admissions, remorse, future compliance and relevant medical evidence.

The Solicitor General applied to commit Tina McGuire for contempt arising from a Facebook post which purported to identify Jon Venables and disclosed his alleged whereabouts. The respondent admitted the post, her knowledge of the injunctions and the breach. The injunctions protected Venables and Robert Thompson, and also persons who might be wrongly identified as them.

The court was satisfied that the breach was proved to the criminal standard. The sole issue was penalty, including whether the custodial sentence should be suspended. The court considered the respondent’s admissions, remorse, subsequent conduct, psychiatric evidence and analogous Sentencing Council guidance.

1. The court found that the respondent knowingly breached paragraphs 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c) of the injunctions by publishing information capable of identifying Venables or Thompson, their names and their whereabouts. The contempt was proved to the criminal standard.

2. Compliance with injunctions of this kind is mandatory. Their purpose includes protecting the named individuals and those who may be wrongly identified as them. The absence of proved actual harm does not remove the seriousness of a breach. The gravamen lies in the exposure to a serious risk of harm and the potential encouragement of vigilante action.

3. The breach was very serious, aggravated by the respondent’s earlier related posting. The custody threshold was passed. Sentencing guidance concerning breaches of protection, restraining and non-molestation orders could be considered, but was only analogous and not a perfect comparator.

4. In deciding whether to suspend custody, the court considered the early and frank admissions, remorse, determination not to offend again, withdrawal from relevant activity and social media, and psychiatric evidence. Taken together, those features made this an exceptional case in which suspension was justified.

5. The appropriate sentence was eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 15 months. The court warned that deliberate breaches of these injunctions would ordinarily attract an immediate custodial sentence of significant length.

This was an application for committal in the High Court (Administrative Court). No earlier procedural decision in the present proceedings was stated.