Lioubov Macpherson v Sunderland City Council

An appeal against a finding of contempt following an admission may succeed where the admission was vitiated, the proceedings were an abuse of process, or the alleged conduct did not occur. The categories are not closed.

A subsisting court order must be obeyed despite disagreement with its validity. On sentencing for contempt, the court must assess seriousness and harm, consider whether a fine suffices, and impose the shortest necessary custodial term. It must then consider mitigation, credit for an early admission, and suspension. An appellate court may interfere where the decision was wrong or procedurally unjust, or where the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed as of right against Poole J's order of 20 January 2023 committing her to 28 days' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, for five contempts of court. The contempts consisted of admitted breaches of Court of Protection orders prohibiting recordings of a vulnerable adult, FP, and care staff, and prohibiting the publication of recordings and information about the proceedings.

The appellant contended that the underlying orders and Court of Protection proceedings were flawed, that procedural irregularities had occurred, and that FP's care was inadequate. She also sought in substance to revisit her admissions. The appeal concerned only whether the contempt findings should stand and whether the suspended custodial sentence was proper.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The appellant was unable to challenge the underlying order of 30 June 2022 in this appeal. Permission to appeal against that order had already been refused. Whatever her views about its validity, she was required to comply with it while it remained in force.

2. The late service of some material, late applications and a failure of personal service did not amount to an abuse of process. The judge ensured that the appellant had adequate time to respond and addressed the procedural failings. She admitted the breaches with legal advice and full knowledge of the late service. An error concerning her name on earlier court lists did not affect the contempt findings or sentence.

3. Applying by analogy the framework in R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108, there was no basis for withdrawing or disregarding the admissions. They were neither equivocal nor produced by improper pressure. The proceedings were not an abuse of process, and the appellant could not show that she had not committed the breaches. The evidence established an overwhelming case of deliberate non-compliance.

4. The sentence accorded with the approach to contempt explained in Her Majesty's Attorney General v Timothy Crosland [2021] UKSC 15. The breaches were deliberate and serious, invaded FP's privacy and involved the manipulation of a vulnerable person. Poole J considered the appellant's early admissions, compliance with attendance requirements, removal of recordings, financial position and personal circumstances. He properly concluded that custody was necessary, selected concurrent terms producing the shortest proper overall sentence of 28 days, and suspended that sentence for 12 months.

5. The Court of Appeal could interfere if the decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity, or if the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Neither threshold was met. The contempt findings were inevitable and the sentence was as low as could properly be imposed. The appellant's complaints about FP's treatment, the merits of the underlying orders and the earlier refusal of permission to appeal were outside the scope of this appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The findings of contempt and the sentence of 28 days' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, were upheld: [2023] EWCA Civ 574.

2. Court of Protection: On 20 January 2023 Poole J found five admitted contempts and imposed concurrent terms of 28 days' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. No citation is stated in the judgment.