Axa Insurance UK Plc v Reid (Rev 1)

A deliberate or reckless false statement verified by a statement of truth is inherently serious contempt because it undermines the administration of justice. Imprisonment will ordinarily be appropriate, even where the statement is exposed early, the litigation does not ultimately succeed, or only a modest sum is claimed. The court must assess seriousness and culpability, including the purpose of the contempt and the risk to the process of justice. Mitigating factors, an early admission and personal hardship may reduce the term, but imprisonment remains a last resort and may still need to be immediate where only immediate custody adequately marks the gravity of the conduct.

The claimant sought the defendant’s committal for contempt of court. In earlier county court proceedings arising from a road traffic collision, the defendant verified a witness statement containing false assertions that an alleged independent witness was previously unknown to him. He admitted that the statements were untrue, materially interfered with or were likely to interfere with the course of justice, and were made knowingly. He also accepted that the custody threshold was crossed. The issues before the court were the appropriate custodial term and whether imprisonment should be suspended.

1. The defendant’s admission established contempt of court to the criminal standard. The false statements were deliberate and designed to present a known associate as an independent witness, thereby strengthening the defendant’s claim on liability.

2. Under CPR 81.9 and section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the court had power to impose imprisonment, suspended imprisonment or a fine. The decision on sanction was for the court, subject to proportionality. Seriousness and culpability were the primary considerations, including the purpose of the contempt and the risk to the administration of justice.

3. The contempt involved significant harm and high culpability. A false statement verified by a statement of truth is ordinarily so serious that committal to prison is required, even if the falsehood is discovered early, does not affect the final result, or relates to a comparatively modest claim. The defendant’s conduct therefore passed the custody threshold.

4. The appropriate starting point was four months’ imprisonment. Aggravating features included the deliberate nature of the lie and its continuation after the claimant sought to plead fundamental dishonesty. Mitigating features included the early admission, remorse, personal circumstances, lack of previous convictions or dishonest conduct, prospects of rehabilitation and the hardship to the defendant’s family. A 25% reduction for the early admission produced a minimum term of eight weeks.

5. Despite the mitigation and the impact of immediate custody on the defendant’s family, suspension would fail to mark the seriousness of the contempt and to do justice more generally. The defendant’s public profile did not justify treating him differently. He was committed to prison for eight weeks and would serve half that period in custody.

not stated in the judgment.