Louise Mary Brittain & Anor v Usman Khalid Raja

Sentencing for contempt is fact-specific. The court must assess the contemnor’s culpability and the harm caused, intended or likely to be caused, together with mitigation and totality. Imprisonment is appropriate only where the contempt is so serious that no lesser penalty suffices, and the term must be the shortest necessary. Deliberate false statements will usually require committal to prison. A substantial breach of disclosure obligations under a freezing order will ordinarily have the same consequence, while persistent non-disclosure may justify a longer sentence to encourage compliance. The maximum sentence is reserved for the most serious cases.

The applicants sought committal of the respondent, Usman Khalid Raja, for contempt. The contempts comprised deliberate false statements concerning whether his wife’s mother was alive and breaches of disclosure requirements imposed by orders made in 2020 and 2022, including non-disclosure concerning Isle of Man and UBL accounts.

Following the court’s substantive judgment, the issue was the appropriate sentence, having regard to culpability, harm or potential harm, personal mitigation and totality.

1. The court treated sentencing for contempt as a fact-specific exercise. The principal considerations, apart from mitigation, were the contemnor’s culpability and the harm caused, intended or likely to be caused. Imprisonment was permissible only where the contempt was so serious that no lesser penalty was sufficient, and the term had to be the shortest necessary. The maximum of two years was reserved for the most serious cases.

2. The false statements involved a planned, sustained and deliberate deception maintained in witness evidence and at hearings. The intended purpose was to obtain variation or discharge of a court order on a false basis and potentially to facilitate departure from the jurisdiction. Culpability and harm were therefore assessed at the higher end of the scale.

3. The non-disclosure contempts involved deliberate, persistent concealment and positively misleading disclosure. Although the sums discovered were relatively modest and harm was placed at the lower end of the scale, breach of disclosure obligations in a freezing order remained a very serious matter for which imprisonment was ordinarily appropriate.

4. The respondent’s good character, anxiety and depression, physical health, family responsibilities and care of his mother were taken into account. They did not materially reduce the sentence required by the seriousness of the contempts. Applying totality, the court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment, described as the minimum commensurate term. The respondent could apply for a reduction if he cooperated, but the court gave no indication of what reduction might be appropriate.