Robert Hood v The Department for Transport & Ors

An interim injunction in civil proceedings is granted on a provisional basis. The court asks whether the evidence, assumed true, raises a serious issue to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favours relief. Once made, the injunction must be obeyed unless and until set aside, even if the evidence is later alleged to be false. Allegations of perjury are ordinarily tested at trial, not through a pre-trial investigation or an appeal against committal.

A court may manage courtroom access through reasonable and proportionate conditions applied even-handedly. Where a litigant voluntarily refuses such a condition and thereby chooses not to attend, proceeding in their absence does not breach Article 6. A committal sentence will stand absent an error of principle in assessing culpability, harm and mitigation.

The appellant was a driving instructor who was subject to an interim injunction obtained in claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The injunction prohibited social-media posts naming, depicting or identifying the claimants, who included the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and three employees.

Following findings of breach, HH Judge Glen committed the appellant to three months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for further posts made in February 2024. The judge proceeded in the appellant’s absence after he refused to surrender his mobile telephone as a condition of entering court.

The appellant appealed as of right. He argued that alleged perjury in evidence supporting the injunction rendered the proceedings void, that the hearing was procedurally unfair and contrary to Article 6, that the posts did not breach the injunction, and that immediate custody was excessive. He also sought a writ of habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the committal order and refused the application for a writ of habeas corpus.

1. Interim injunction and alleged perjury. On an interim injunction application, the court does not determine the truth of written evidence. It asks whether, assuming the evidence to be true, there is a serious issue to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favours relief: [1975] AC 396. Once granted, the injunction had to be obeyed unless and until set aside, regardless of the truth of the evidence supporting it. Alleged perjury did not invalidate earlier orders. The truth of the evidence was ordinarily a matter for the final trial, and the judges below had no power to conduct a pre-trial investigation.
2. Fairness and absence. A judge has an inherent jurisdiction to regulate access to the courtroom, but any restriction must be reasonable and proportionate and must not unjustly interfere with participation. Requiring everyone, including counsel, to surrender mobile telephones was justified by earlier conduct and was applied even-handedly. The appellant’s refusal made his absence voluntary. Continuing the public hearing in those circumstances did not breach Article 6.
3. Breach and sanction. The injunction prohibited posts containing photographs of, or naming, the protected individuals in unequivocal terms. The reference to persons who might reasonably be identified qualified only the prohibition concerning personal data. The findings of breach were therefore sound. The judge properly considered culpability, harm and mitigation, and made no error of principle in imposing immediate concurrent custody of three months.
4. Habeas corpus. Detention under an order made by a court with jurisdiction should be challenged by appeal. The bare assertion that the committing court lacked jurisdiction, together with an unidentified reference to Section 10, provided no legal foundation for habeas corpus.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division), [2024] EWCA Civ 760: dismissed the appeal as of right against the committal order and refused the application for a writ of habeas corpus.
• County Court at Bournemouth: HH Judge Glen found breaches of the injunction proved and committed the appellant to three months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for the February 2024 breaches.