REX v AMINA HUSSAIN

A committal for contempt of court is not a sentence of imprisonment under the ordinary criminal sentencing regime. Provisions concerning suspended sentences and community requirements therefore do not apply. Sentencing guidelines may be considered by analogy, but the key question is whether appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody. Recording jurors’ names and publishing their images on social media is liable to attract immediate custody because it threatens the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. Personal mitigation remains relevant to proportionality. An appellate court may substitute a shorter term where the committal is manifestly excessive.

The appellant admitted contempt of court after recording courtroom proceedings, including the swearing-in of a jury and the jurors’ names, and sharing images of jurors on Snapchat. The Crown Court at Snaresbrook imposed four months’ custody. The appellant appealed as of right under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, accepting that the custody threshold was passed but arguing that custody should be suspended or, alternatively, that the term should be reduced. The central issues were whether immediate custody was required and whether the four-month term was proportionate.

The appeal was allowed in part. The four-month committal period was manifestly excessive, and a custodial period of two months was substituted.

1. Legal character of the committal. A committal for contempt of court is not a sentence of imprisonment within the ordinary criminal law regime. The court relied on section 222(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 or the Sentencing Code, and on R v Yaxley-Lennon [2018] EWCA Crim 1856, [2018] 1 WLR 4500. Chapter 5 of Part 10 of the Sentencing Code, including its community requirements, did not apply. The closest equivalent to a suspended sentence was a suspended committal order on terms under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
2. Appellate approach. The order could be challenged on the basis of an error of principle or because the punishment was manifestly excessive. Although the sentencing guidelines were not directly applicable, they could be considered by analogy. The key question was whether appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody.
3. Immediate custody. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that immediate custody was necessary. Recording jurors’ names and publishing their images on social media struck at the heart of the criminal justice system. The protection of jurors was especially important, and the prevalence of social media made the prohibition particularly significant. Personal mitigation did not justify suspending the committal.
4. Length of sentence. The court considered the appellant’s mitigation, including the effect of custody on her young child, and information not fully available to the sentencing judge. Four months was manifestly excessive, but the term was not reduced to the extent sought. Two months was just and proportionate.
5. Statutory recording error. The contempt had been incorrectly recorded as a breach of section 17 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The relevant provision was section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. The error did not affect the substance or outcome.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2022] EWCA Crim 1298, the appeal was allowed to the extent that a two-month custodial period was substituted.
2. Crown Court at Snaresbrook — HHJ Canavan imposed four months’ custody for contempt of court on 23 August 2022.