Minstrell Recruitment Ltd v Lockett & Anor

Contempt is established objectively where a defendant knows of the order and knows the acts or omissions in question, even if the defendant misunderstands the order or believes that the conduct is permitted. The criminal standard applies to facts constituting contempt and to any allegation of wilful or reckless breach. Other factual matters relied upon in mitigation are ordinarily proved on the balance of probabilities by the party asserting them.

In sentencing, the court assesses culpability and harm, considers aggravating and mitigating factors, and imposes imprisonment only where no lesser penalty is adequate. A serious, deliberate and continuing flouting of an injunction may justify immediate custody.

Minstrell Recruitment Ltd applied to commit John Lockett for contempt of court. The alleged contempts concerned breaches of injunctions made by HHJ Hodge QC on 24 August 2018 and HHJ Eyre QC on 28 September 2018.

The allegations included untrue disparaging communications about Minstrell and its directors, solicitation of a restricted client, failure to deliver up property or provide confirmatory evidence, and failure to provide an affidavit required by the order. Mr Lockett admitted many social-media breaches but disputed others and relied on misunderstanding, mitigation and alleged harassment by persons connected with Minstrell.

The central issues were whether the disputed breaches were proved, the applicable standards of proof, and the appropriate sanction.

1. Contempt proved. The court found that Mr Lockett had committed numerous serious breaches of the injunction against untrue disparaging comments. The posts and communications were calculated to damage Minstrell and its directors and continued after clear warnings that the injunction remained in force.
2. Objective breach. Applying Varma v Atkinson and Mummery [2020] EWCA Civ 1602, the question whether an order was breached was objective. It was unnecessary to prove that Mr Lockett knew that his conduct amounted to a breach. His knowledge of the order and of the relevant acts or omissions was sufficient. His state of mind remained relevant to sanction.
3. Standards of proof. The criminal standard applied to the facts constituting contempt, consistently with Re Bramblevale Limited [1970] Ch 128. Where Minstrell alleged wilful or reckless breach, that allegation also had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Other factual matters relied upon in mitigation were determined on the balance of probabilities by the person asserting them.
4. Disputed allegations. The allegations based on messages sent by Mr Pogmore using a former employee’s phone were withdrawn. The alleged failure to provide a confirmatory witness statement was proved, but the failure to deliver up Minstrell property was not. The alleged breach concerning Paneltec was not proved to the criminal standard. The allegation concerning HHJ Halliwell’s order was dismissed because Mr Lockett’s knowledge of that order was not proved.
5. Sanction. Applying the framework in Financial Conduct Authority v McKendrick [2019] 4 WLR 65 and Oliver v Shaikh (No.2) [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB), the court assessed culpability, intended and likely harm, admissions, remorse, personal circumstances and the risk of repetition. The contempts were at the upper end of seriousness. A fine or suspended sentence was inadequate. Mr Lockett was committed to prison for 12 months.
6. A permanent injunction in the form of paragraph 4 of HHJ Eyre QC’s order was granted. Minstrell obtained its costs, but recovery was reduced by 50% to reflect the dishonest manufacture and pursuit of false evidence by its employee.

Not stated in the judgment.