Janice Wright v Yvonne Rogers

In civil contempt proceedings for failure to comply with a court order, the primary aim of a sanction is to secure compliance. The sanction must be the least onerous capable of achieving that aim. The contemnor’s hostility to the court, abusive conduct, culpability and the harm caused may justify a more severe response, but must not convert a compliance exercise into punishment for a different form of contempt. Immediate imprisonment is a last resort. Where there has been some compliance and age or mental-health concerns, a suspended committal should ordinarily be considered first. A structured sentencing approach may assist, but criminal sentencing guidelines are not a mechanistic or reliable measure for civil contempt.

The respondent obtained an injunction requiring the appellant to remove obstructions from a right of way, remedy tree trespass and pay costs. The appellant failed to comply. She was found in contempt in her absence, a finding that was not appealed. At the later sanction hearing, the Winchester County Court imposed an immediate six-month term of imprisonment, relying on the continuing breach and abusive communications directed at the claimant, her solicitor and the court.

The appellant challenged the refusal to defer the hearing so that counsel could attend and argued that her age, health and personal circumstances made immediate custody disproportionate. The central issue was the proper approach to sanctioning civil contempt and whether immediate imprisonment was justified.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The immediate committal order was quashed and replaced by a suspended three-month term of imprisonment. The suspension was for 12 months, conditional on removal of all driveway obstructions by 20 January 2023 and continued compliance with the injunction. The costs order was unaffected.
2. Purpose of sanction. In civil contempt arising from failure to comply with a court order, the principal aim is to secure compliance. Sanctions should be the least onerous which will achieve that result. The contemnor’s attitude, any apology or genuine attempt to comply, culpability and harm are relevant. Abusive conduct may justify a more severe sanction, but it must not be allowed to change a case about securing compliance with a right-of-way order into a case about harassment under a different injunction.
3. Sentencing approach. The court accepted that a structured approach reflecting criminal sentencing may be useful, beginning with culpability and harm. It is not mechanistic. The purposes of civil contempt differ from those identified in section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Criminal guidelines concerning anti-social behaviour injunctions and criminal behaviour orders were not reliable guides because the maximum term for contempt is two years and the civil court cannot impose community orders. The limited use of statutory requirements under section 3 of the Anti-Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 was noted, with reference to Lovett, Smith and Hopkins [2022] EWCA Civ 1631.
4. Application. The breach was deliberate and longstanding, but the appellant had removed some obstruction before sentence. The abusive communications substantially increased the harm and culpability. Nevertheless, her age, apparent mental-health difficulties and the fact that this was her first committal justified another opportunity to comply. Immediate custody should have been suspended first.
5. Ancillary direction. The communications were directed to the Government Legal Department for consideration of whether a separate harassment injunction should be sought. Repetition after such an injunction could amount to further serious contempt.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal, quashed the immediate six-month committal order and substituted a suspended three-month term subject to compliance conditions.
2. Winchester County Court: HHJ Berkley imposed the immediate committal order after the appellant had been found in contempt for failing to comply with the injunction.