Jonathan David Rowland & Anor. v Kevin Gerald Stanford

The Court considered an application for discharge of a contemnor committed to prison for breaching a mandatory disclosure order made on 21 April 2021. The Court applied the framework derived from Flintshire Borough Council (Sedley LJ and Wilson LJ) and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 section 14(1) in determining whether there was a lawful reason for discharge. It found that the contemnor had served an amount of imprisonment proportionate to punishment for past contempts and had made a genuine expression of contrition.

The Court found that imaging of electronic devices and an agreed search protocol satisfied paragraphs 1 and 2 of the April 2021 order. The Court accepted the contemnor’s new affidavit as adequate in relation to the circumstances in which he came into possession of the Archive but required further affidavit detail about provision of material to third parties; the contemnor indicated he would now not invoke privilege against self-incrimination. Balancing the parties’ interests, the Court concluded the contemnor had purged his contempt and ordered release and discharge subject to a further order giving 28 days to provide the remaining affidavit material. Costs of the recent hearings were awarded to the Claimants, summarily assessed at £80,000.

This is a first-instance judgment dealing with an application for discharge from committal for contempt. The defendant, Mr Stanford, had been committed to prison on 13 June 2022 following findings of contempt for non-compliance with a mandatory order dated 21 April 2021 requiring (1) imaging of an identified Archive, (2) provision of communications with third parties including the supplier of the Archive, and (3) an affidavit describing how he came into possession of the Archive and his provision of parts of it to others (subject to a proviso for self-incrimination).

The application for discharge was adjourned from 25 July 2022 and heard on 11 August 2022. The Court set out the legal framework: the inherent power to discharge preserved by section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the non-discretionary requirement that the contemnor advance a lawful reason for discharge, together with guidance derived from the Flintshire decision.

The key issues were:

• whether the contemnor had been sufficiently punished for past contempts (the sentencing allocation of half the sentence to past contempts was relevant and under section 258(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 he was required to serve one-half of each period);
• whether continued discharge would significantly prejudice the rule of law;
• whether the contemnor had shown genuine contrition;
• whether the steps taken (imaging, agreed search protocol, and the new affidavit) sufficiently complied with paragraphs 1–3 of the April 2021 order; and
• whether invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination remained open to the contemnor.

The Court found imaging had been completed and an agreed search protocol was in place, satisfying paragraphs 1 and 2. The Court accepted the affidavit as adequately addressing how the Archive came into the contemnor’s possession but required more detail about disclosures to third parties; it accepted the practical difficulty of giving a full narrative while incarcerated and the contemnor’s concession that he would not further rely on the privilege. On balance, and having regard to the Claimants’ access to the imaged data, the Court concluded the contemnor had purged his contempt. The Court ordered discharge and release, granted the Claimants costs of the relevant hearings and made provision for a further order giving the contemnor 28 days to provide the remaining affidavit material.

The application for discharge was allowed. The Court held that the defendant had purged his contempt by serving the portion of imprisonment attributable to past contempts, expressing contrition, completing the imaging exercise and providing an affidavit addressing how he came into possession of the Archive. The Court ordered his release and discharge, gave him 28 days to provide the remaining affidavit detail about provision of material to third parties (without the previous proviso for self-incrimination), and awarded costs to the Claimants summarily assessed at £80,000.

Not an appeal. Procedural history in the judgment: committal to prison on 13 June 2022 for three contempts (three concurrent eight-month sentences, allocation of half of each as punishment for past contempts), an adjourned discharge hearing on 25 July 2022, and the present discharge hearing on 11 August 2022.