Mayze v Ms X

Contempt in the face of the court must be proved by the applicant to the criminal standard. The court must be sure that the alleged conduct occurred and that the relevant contemptuous intention is established. Threatening conduct may amount to contempt even where the respondent denies intending a threat and offers an alternative explanation. The court may amend particulars to reflect what has been proved and must dismiss allegations, or parts of allegations, that do not meet the criminal standard. Serious threats made in family proceedings may justify custody, although mitigation and procedural failings by the court may warrant suspension or reduction of the sentence.

The court brought an application for committal against Mr Mayze following his conduct during family proceedings concerning contact with his son. During an adjourned hearing, he made statements which were alleged to threaten the mother and to amount to contempt in the face of the court. He denied threatening anyone and gave an alternative account of his words.

The court considered four allegations, including the meaning and intended effect of statements made in the courtroom, whether the mother feared for her safety, and whether further conduct showed that the alleged threats were intended to be taken seriously. The central issues were whether the allegations were proved to the criminal standard and, if so, what sentence was appropriate.

1. Proof and standard. The court itself was the applicant. The burden rested on it, and the criminal standard applied. Mr Mayze was entitled to put the court to proof and was not required to give evidence. The court had to be sure before finding an allegation proved.
2. Findings. The court rejected Mr Mayze’s explanation that references to doing things the wrong way, and to a promise rather than a threat, meant that he intended merely to instruct a solicitor. In context, the statements conveyed an intention to act outside the court process and irrespective of court orders. Allegation one was proved, with the reference to illegal means replaced by wording referring to action irrespective of court orders.
3. The court found that the statement that, if accused of something, a person might as well do it, was a threat to do the matters of which Mr Mayze was accused. The allegation was amended by deleting the reference to throwing acid or another corrosive substance, because that aspect was not proved to the criminal standard. The finding did not establish that he had committed domestic violence, controlling behaviour or criminal damage; it established only that he threatened to do acts of which he had been accused.
4. The court found that Mr Mayze intended the threats to cause the mother to fear for her safety. The court could not be sure that he succeeded in causing that fear because the mother had not given evidence. The final words of allegation three were therefore deleted.
5. The court found that Mr Mayze continued responding after being given time to reflect, accused the mother’s partner of being a sex offender, and did not withdraw or apologise for the threats. It was not satisfied that his reference to the judge’s children was a threat, or that this conduct showed that he intended the threats to be taken seriously in the manner alleged. Those parts were deleted.
6. Sentence. The proved conduct constituted contempt in the face of the court. The contempt was sufficiently serious to cross the custody threshold, and only custody would suffice. The sentence was reduced from three months to two months because the court had failed to serve the order on Cafcass, causing the fact-finding hearing to be adjourned. The sentence was suspended for one year. If activated, one half would be served in custody.