AAA & Anor v CCC

Sentencing for contempt of court should follow an approach analogous to criminal sentencing. The court must assess seriousness by reference to culpability and harm, decide whether a fine is sufficient, and, where custody is necessary, impose the shortest term properly reflecting the contempt. Mitigation includes genuine remorse, character, health, impact on dependants and the timing of any admission. A late apology may have little weight. The court must separately consider suspension, balancing punishment with securing future compliance. The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction permits suspension of part, rather than all, of a custodial term.

The claimants obtained an order protecting their identity and commercial interests. The defendant was found, following a committal hearing, to have committed 28 deliberate breaches of that order and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years.

The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was unduly lenient and flawed, set it aside, and remitted the matter for reconsideration in light of any further mitigation or aggravation: [2022] EWCA Civ 479. The defendant did not attend the reconsideration hearing, but the judge was satisfied that he had been duly served. The central issues were the proper custodial term and whether all or part of it should be suspended.

1. The judge reconsidered sentence in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s guidance. The contempt involved 28 breaches which undermined the purpose of the order, including protection of the claimants’ anonymity and prevention of interference with commercial relations. The breaches were deliberate, continued after complaint, and were defended by untenable arguments and unfounded allegations.

2. Following Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Crosland, the court assessed seriousness before mitigation. A fine was insufficient. The seriousness of the contempt required imprisonment towards the upper end of the two-year maximum. The shortest term properly reflecting the contempt was 20 months before mitigation.

3. Mitigation included the defendant’s previous good character, age, disabilities and poor health. There was no cogent evidence that mental impairment caused the breaches. The apology was very late and counted for little. Genuine remorse expressed after sentence was recognised, but attracted limited credit. Anxiety arising from the appellate process was also considered, but its weight was limited because the defendant had not engaged with that process or attended the hearing.

4. The court applied the guidance in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company v Khan & Ors: Practice Note concerning admissions, mitigation and suspension. After mitigation, the appropriate term was 15 months. Suspension was then considered separately. Securing future compliance remained important, but punishment required an immediate custodial element.

5. The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to suspend execution of imprisonment, recognised in R v Yaxley-Lennon, permitted partial suspension. The judge ordered 10 months’ immediate imprisonment and suspended the remaining five months for a period exceeding the immediate term, conditional on compliance with the substantive order and confidential schedule. The defendant would be eligible for unconditional release after serving five months of the immediate term.

1. High Court (Business List): The defendant was found in contempt and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years.
2. Court of Appeal: The claimants’ appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was set aside as unduly lenient and the matter was remitted for reconsideration: [2022] EWCA Civ 479.
3. High Court (Business List): On remission, the sentence was reconsidered and a 15-month term imposed, with 10 months immediate and five months suspended.