Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust vMetcalf

Contempt involving deliberate false statements and fabricated evidence in support of a grossly exaggerated civil claim is exceptionally serious because it undermines the administration of justice. The court should assess culpability and harm, intended or likely, using the criminal sentencing approach as a useful comparison. It should then determine whether a fine is sufficient, assess mitigation, give appropriate credit for admissions, and decide whether imprisonment should be suspended. Deliberate, sustained deception of experts, particularly where millions of pounds are claimed from a public body, may place the contempt in the highest sentencing bracket. Immediate custody may be necessary even where the contemnor has no previous convictions, has health difficulties, cares for a young child and has admitted the contempt.

The claimant NHS foundation trust applied to commit the defendant for contempt of court. The defendant had pursued a clinical negligence claim arising from a delayed diagnosis, liability having been admitted and an interim payment made. During the quantum proceedings she admitted repeatedly exaggerating or inventing physical disabilities, misleading experts, verifying false statements and presenting a claim exceeding £5.7 million when the legitimate claim was agreed to be approximately £350,000.

She admitted the allegations and accepted that the custody threshold had been crossed. The issues were the appropriate length of imprisonment and whether the sentence should be suspended.

1. Sentence. The admitted contempts involved deliberate, systematic and sustained deception over several years. They included false statements of truth and the manufacture of false evidence through repeated deception of experts. The claim was inflated by approximately £5 million and concerned resources of the National Health Service. The conduct was therefore in the upper bracket of seriousness. A starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment was appropriate.
2. Assessment of seriousness and mitigation. The approach in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Khan and Zafar [2019] 1 WLR 3833 was of general assistance and application, although the earlier case concerned an expert witness. Culpability, harm, intended or likely harm, admissions, remorse, health, character, impact on dependants, delay and the effects of imprisonment during the pandemic were relevant. The defendant’s genuine underlying claim, repayment of the interim payment, poor health, lack of previous convictions, pre-proceedings admissions, care of a young child, anxiety caused by the proceedings and pandemic conditions reduced the sentence to nine months.
3. Admissions and suspension. Full admissions made when the contempt proceedings were issued justified a further reduction to six months. Although there was no risk of repetition and the defendant had caring responsibilities, suspension would fail to provide punishment proportionate to the deliberate fabrication of evidence supporting a claim inflated by millions of pounds.
4. Order. The defendant was committed to prison for six months with immediate effect. She was to serve three months immediately and was entitled to automatic release, without conditions, after serving half the term, applying Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Khan and Zafar [2019] 1 WLR 3833.

First-instance committal decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.