Lockett v Minstrell Recruitment Ltd

Sentencing for contempt protects the administration of justice and the rule of law. Financial loss to the claimant may aggravate contempt, but its absence is not itself mitigation. Sentences imposed in very different contexts should not be compared mechanically. Prison conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic, together with the contemnor’s fragile mental state, may be weighed in mitigation. Serious misconduct by the party pursuing committal, particularly conduct that misleads the court, may warrant a substantial reduction. Deliberate, persistent and serious contempt may nevertheless require immediate custody where genuine remorse and future compliance cannot be relied upon.

Mr Lockett appealed only against the sentence imposed for contempt, not the findings of breach. Snowden J had found breaches of injunctions and related orders, including admitted breaches of the prohibition on untrue disparaging comments, and imposed 12 months’ immediate imprisonment in [2020] EWHC 3537 (Ch). The appeal concerned whether insufficient weight had been given to the absence of financial loss, Mr Lockett’s mental health, his late admissions, prison conditions during Covid-19, and Minstrell’s misconduct in generating and pursuing part of the committal case. The central issues were whether the sentence was too long and whether immediate custody should be replaced by a suspended sentence.

Appeal allowed in part. The court, in reasons given by Lady Justice Rose and agreed by Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Simler, substituted eight months’ imprisonment for the 12-month sentence.

1. Appellate review. The court accepted that it could intervene where, after reviewing the relevant sentencing factors, the sentence imposed was plainly too long and outside the range reasonably open to the first-instance judge. The appeal concerned sentence only, and the findings of contempt were not challenged.
2. Financial harm. The absence of financial loss to Minstrell did not constitute mitigation. Financial loss may aggravate contempt, but contempt damages the administration of justice and the rule of law even where no financial loss is proved. A contemnor must comply with a court order regardless of the financial consequences of non-compliance. The court also rejected a simple comparison with the sentence in Financial Conduct Authority v McKendrick [2019] 4 WLR 65, because the cases arose in very different contexts.
3. Prison conditions and mental health. Conditions in custody during the Covid-19 pandemic were a relevant sentencing factor. The court applied the approach in R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592, under which the heavier impact of imprisonment during the emergency could properly be taken into account. Those conditions, combined with Mr Lockett’s fragile mental state and limited access to recommended support, warranted greater mitigation.
4. Misconduct by the committal applicant. Minstrell’s misconduct required substantial weight. Its manager deliberately supplied false information which misled both Mr Lockett and the solicitors preparing the committal application. The associated harassment campaign also contributed to Mr Lockett’s sense of injustice. In contempt proceedings, the obligation to ensure the accuracy of material placed before the court is particularly important. The first-instance reduction had therefore been insufficient.
5. Immediate custody. The contempts were serious, deliberate and persistent, and the first-instance judge had found no genuine remorse or reliable prospect of compliance. They remained at the more serious end of the range and required immediate custody. A suspended sentence was not appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal in part and substituted a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment for the 12-month sentence.
• High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Manchester, Business List (ChD): Snowden J found Mr Lockett in contempt for breaches of court orders and imposed 12 months’ immediate imprisonment in [2020] EWHC 3537 (Ch).