HOLLIE LOUISE TOTTON & Anor v MARK DAVID TOTTON

Sentencing for contempt requires assessment of the prejudice or harm caused, pressure, the nature and seriousness of the breaches, culpability, the involvement of third parties, co-operation, admission, and mitigation. An immediate custodial sentence is justified where breaches amount to serious, contumacious flouting of court orders and lesser sanctions would not secure compliance. Credit may be given for a prompt admission and apology. The sentence may be suspended for execution to provide a final opportunity for compliance, even where suspension of the sentence itself would not be justified.

The applicants, beneficiaries of an estate, obtained committal findings against the respondent, the estate’s beneficiary and sole executor. The respondent had breached paragraphs 7 and 9 of an order requiring him to take specified steps in administering the estate. He failed to attend the initial sentencing hearing, was arrested under a bench warrant, and appeared before the court on 15 September 2022.

He admitted the breaches and apologised. The issue was the appropriate sentence for the continuing contempt, including whether imprisonment should be immediate, suspended, or suspended only as to execution to allow a final opportunity for compliance.

1. Sentence. The respondent’s breaches were deliberate and serious. They had caused significant prejudice because the applicants had been kept out of their inheritance for a substantial period. The respondent had acted without pressure from third parties, had failed to engage with the legal process, and bore a high degree of culpability.
2. In assessing sentence, the court considered the prejudice or harm, pressure, nature of the breaches, culpability, third-party involvement, seriousness, co-operation, admission, and mitigation. The court adopted the general principles in Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan [2022] EWHC 45 (Ch) and the seriousness criteria applied in Law House Ltd (In Administration) v Adams [2020] EWHC 2344 (Ch).
3. A fine would not be sufficient. The conduct amounted to serious, contumacious flouting of court orders and merited a custodial sentence. The minimum proper sentence was four months, reduced by one month for the respondent’s admission and apology, with credit also given for two days already spent in custody. The resulting sentence was three months’ imprisonment.
4. Six weeks represented punishment for the past breaches and six weeks was intended to secure future compliance. Suspension of the sentence itself was unjustified because the respondent had not engaged with the process and suspension had no real prospect of securing compliance.
5. Execution of the committal order was nevertheless suspended under CPR Part 81.9(2) until 10 October 2022, giving the respondent a final opportunity to comply. The committal application was listed for further hearing, with a warrant to issue if compliance did not occur.
6. Under section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the respondent would be entitled to unconditional release after serving half the sentence, subject to variation or discharge.

This was a first-instance sentencing decision following an earlier committal finding. The judgment records that the respondent had a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal without permission.