Scarlett Ione Dew v Oliver Mills-Nanyn

A sentence for contempt of court arising from breach of undertakings serves both to impose just punishment and to enforce respect for, and compliance with, the court’s orders. The sanction is fact-specific. Relevant considerations include the effect of the breaches, their deliberate and culpable nature, and the contemnor’s conduct after the allegations are raised. Credit may be given for a genuine admission and apology, but that credit may be reduced where the admission is late, follows prolonged denial, or is accompanied by attempts to minimise responsibility. Persistent harassment and repeated breach of protective undertakings may justify imprisonment, suspended where personal mitigation and subsequent conduct make immediate custody unnecessary.

The claimant and defendant met through online dating. After the claimant sought to end contact, the defendant engaged in an escalating campaign of harassment. The claimant issued proceedings for harassment and misuse of private information. The claim was settled by an order dated 4 March 2021 containing undertakings by the defendant not to contact or monitor the claimant and persons connected with her, and to disclose and delete relevant material.

The defendant repeatedly breached those undertakings. The claimant applied for his committal for contempt in respect of 20 sample breaches. The defendant initially denied the allegations but later admitted all of them, converting the listed contempt trial into a sanctions hearing. The central issue was the appropriate sanction for the admitted breaches.

1. The court found the defendant guilty of all 20 admitted breaches of his undertakings. The purpose of sanctioning contempt in this context was both to impose just punishment and to enforce respect for, and compliance with, the undertakings.

2. There were no sentencing guidelines for contempt of court. The assessment was therefore fact-specific. The court considered the effect of the breaches on the claimant, the extent to which they were deliberate and culpable, and the defendant’s conduct after being confronted with the allegations, following the considerations identified in Crystalmews Ltd v Metterick [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch).

3. The breaches formed part of a persistent, harmful and oppressive course of conduct and represented a continuing invasion of the claimant’s autonomy and privacy. They were aggravated by the defendant’s disregard of the court’s protective order. His prolonged denials, attempts to minimise responsibility, absence of a timely apology, and continuing breaches weighed against him. His eventual admission, youth, previous good character, employment prospects, limited resources and efforts to attend the hearing constituted mitigation, although the late admission and apology reduced their weight.

4. The least punishment consistent with the purposes of sanctioning the contempt was six months’ imprisonment. The sentence was suspended for two years, subject to compliance with the undertakings. The defendant was also ordered to pay the claimant £30,000 under the settlement order and the claimant’s costs of the contempt proceedings on the indemnity basis, with an interim payment on account of costs.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier settlement, directions and committal proceedings but gives no appellate history.