Jon Rivers v Chief Constable of Surrey Constabulary & Ors

Contempt applications must identify precisely the acts alleged, the relevant dishonesty or mental element, and the evidence relied upon. Mandatory procedural requirements apply even where the applicant acts in person. Applications may be struck out where they fail to comply with those requirements, disclose no tenable case, or seek to relitigate issues already determined. Submissions made by counsel are not evidence given by counsel, and contempt requires proof of the requisite mental element. Where permission is required, the court must be satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case capable of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that proceedings serve the public interest and proportionality. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provisions concerning bad character evidence do not apply to civil contempt or judicial review.

The claimant brought committal applications against the former Chief Constable of Surrey, his solicitor and his counsel. The applications alleged that inaccurate disclosures and a schedule used in earlier judicial review proceedings had misled Freedman J and amounted to contempt. They also sought further evidence and pursued related applications to strike out the defendants’ statement of case, obtain summary judgment and adduce bad character evidence.

Freedman J had refused permission for judicial review and for a contempt application in [2022] EWHC 2382 (Admin). The Court of Appeal later refused permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the committal applications were properly particularised and evidenced, whether they complied with procedural requirements, whether they constituted an abuse by relitigating earlier matters, and whether the ancillary applications had any legal foundation.

1. Committal applications. The applications were struck out as totally without merit. They failed to identify clearly the acts constituting contempt, the alleged dishonesty and the evidence capable of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. They also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 81 and the directions order made by Sir Duncan Ouseley.
2. Procedural fairness. Under CPR r.81.4, the applications required a proper schedule identifying the nature of the contempt, a brief summary of the alleged facts and supporting affidavit or affirmation evidence. CPR r.81.5 required personal service. A litigant in person was not exempt from compliance with the rules or the court order.
3. No tenable contempt case. The allegations against the former Chief Constable did not explain how he could be criminally liable for officers’ conduct. The case against the solicitor rested on a misunderstanding of the status of the Court Schedule. Counsel had made submissions on behalf of her client, not given evidence or testimony. The claimant’s acknowledgement that counsel might not have known that the submissions were wrong was fatal to the required mental element.
4. Abuse of process. The applications attempted to relitigate matters considered by Freedman J, including alleged dishonesty and the use of the Court Schedule. That judgment had been upheld when permission to appeal was refused. Committal proceedings may be struck out where they seek to reopen issues raised, or which should have been raised, in earlier proceedings. The Henderson v Henderson principle and the broader approach described in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co applied.
5. Other applications. The application to strike out the defendants’ statement of case and obtain summary judgment had no proceedings to which it could attach. The application to adduce bad character evidence failed because the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not apply to civil contempt or judicial review. The claimant was given seven days to explain why an extended civil restraint order should not be made. The defendants were awarded their costs of responding to the committal applications.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Freedman J refused permission for judicial review and for a contempt application in [2022] EWHC 2382 (Admin).
• Court of Appeal: Dingemans LJ refused permission to appeal and refused reliance on fresh evidence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the present committal applications and related applications were struck out or refused as totally without merit.