Mohammed Saleem Khawaja v Stela Stefanova & Ors

In sentencing for contempt, the court must assess the seriousness of each proved breach and then stand back to ensure that the total sentence is proportionate to the contemnor’s overall conduct. Imprisonment is reserved for serious or contumelious flouting of orders, but may be required where breaches are deliberate, prolonged, harmful or accompanied by misleading disclosure. In contempt involving disclosure orders made in a freezing-order context, a substantial custodial sentence may be appropriate. The court may consider the wider factual context relevant to culpability and harm, while sentencing only for breaches proved. Admissions, compliance, remorse, personal circumstances and caring responsibilities are relevant mitigation. A custodial sentence may be suspended where suspension is necessary to secure compliance and protect dependants.

The petitioner pursued contempt proceedings against the respondents concerning breaches of High Court and County Court orders, including disclosure obligations arising in the context of a freezing injunction. The court had found multiple breaches proved, including deliberate non-compliance and misleading or incomplete information. The judgment concerned the appropriate sanction, including the seriousness of the breaches, the relevance of wider context, personal mitigation, caring responsibilities and the possibility of suspension.

1. General approach. The court applied the totality principle. It assessed the individual breaches collectively and then stood back to ensure that the overall sentence was proportionate. Imprisonment is appropriate only for serious or contumelious flouting of court orders. Culpability and harm are the principal measures of seriousness.
2. Relevant sentencing factors. The court considered admissions, apologies, remorse, belated compliance, character, antecedents, mental health, the pressure of litigation and caring responsibilities. A desire to keep offenders, particularly first-time offenders, out of prison does not prevent custody where the breaches are sufficiently serious.
3. Disclosure in a freezing-order context. Applying the principles summarised from Otkritie International Management v Gersamia [2015] EWHC 821, serious non-compliance with disclosure orders made in the context of a freezing order requires consideration of a substantial custodial sentence. Relevant considerations include the extent and duration of the failure, the harm or risk of harm, deliberateness, the reasons for non-compliance and misleading disclosure.
4. Wider context. Although the sentence had to relate to the proved allegations, the court was entitled to consider other facts and context bearing on culpability and harm. The deliberate withholding of information had delayed protective steps and increased the risk of asset dissipation.
5. Disposition. The breaches of the High Court orders attracted four months’ custody, treated together. The breaches of the County Court order attracted a further consecutive four months, making eight months in total. The sentence was suspended for 18 months, on condition of full compliance with the High Court orders, including completion of outstanding requirements within 28 days. The decisive mitigating consideration was the contemnor’s responsibility for a young child.