The Chief Constable of Kent Police & Anor v Daryll Sturgess Taylor

Contempt for breach of a court order requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the order was unambiguous, the defendant had notice of it, the prohibited act or omission occurred deliberately, and the defendant knew the facts making it a breach. For a mandatory order, the court must also be sure that compliance was within the defendant’s power at the relevant date. Each alleged contempt must be considered separately. A continuing breach cannot be established by an inference that leaves a real possibility of compliance or deletion.

The claimants applied to commit the defendant for contempt arising from alleged breaches of orders made in earlier confidential-information proceedings. The orders prohibited retention of downloaded police videos and required the defendant to provide information by affidavit and attend with his devices so that an independent IT expert could delete or verify deletion of copies.

The defendant did not attend the hearing despite repeated notice and warnings. The court proceeded in his absence. The issues were whether the orders were clear, personally served, deliberately breached, and capable of performance at the relevant dates, and whether retention of the videos could be proved to the criminal standard.

1. The court proceeded in the defendant’s absence because he knew of the hearing, had deliberately waived attendance, and had been repeatedly informed of his rights. The public interest in dealing promptly with continuing alleged breaches supported that course.
2. Each alleged contempt had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The order had to be unambiguous; the defendant had to have notice; the act or omission had to be deliberate; and he had to know the facts constituting the breach. Knowledge that the conduct breached the order was unnecessary.
3. For a mandatory order, the claimants also had to prove that compliance was within the defendant’s power at the date fixed. The affidavit order and attendance order were clear, personally served, and deliberately breached while compliance remained possible.
4. The allegation that the defendant retained the videos was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. His non-compliance with the mandatory orders did not establish retention, since there remained a real possibility that he had deleted the videos.
5. The defendant was found in contempt for breaching the mandatory orders. The retention allegation was dismissed. Penalty was adjourned to allow mitigation.