Wye Valley NHS Trust v Sean Murphy

Contempt of court requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that a statement was false, materially interfered or was likely to interfere with the course of justice, and was made without an honest belief in its truth, with knowledge of that likelihood. The court should focus on the central deceptive conduct rather than adjudicating every minor detail. Repeated false accounts given to medical experts, consistent statements verified in pleadings or schedules, and objective evidence may establish deliberate interference with the administration of justice. The application of those principles resulted in findings of contempt concerning false assertions about work, rugby and arm strength.

The Trust applied to commit Sean Murphy for contempt arising from a clinical negligence claim. Murphy had claimed substantial damages after surgery for a rugby injury and had verified particulars of claim and a preliminary schedule of loss.

The underlying negligence claim was dismissed for fundamental dishonesty by a Deputy High Court Judge. The Trust then alleged that Murphy had given false information to four medical experts and had made false statements in documents verified by statements of truth. The allegations concerned his asserted inability to work, inability to play rugby and reduced strength in his left arm. Murphy pleaded guilty in relation to the rugby allegation but disputed the remaining allegations and the basis of his plea.

The central issues were whether the statements were false, whether they interfered with or were likely to interfere with the course of justice, and whether Murphy made them knowingly and without an honest belief in their truth.

1. Contempt test. The Trust bore the burden of proof to the criminal standard. Following the approach in AXA Insurance UK plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB), it had to prove the falsity of each statement, material interference with or likely interference with the course of justice, and absence of an honest belief in the statement’s truth together with knowledge of that likelihood.
2. Focus of the inquiry. Consistently with Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Atwal [2018] EWHC 961 (QB), the court focused on the nub of the alleged deception rather than determining every detail alleged to be false. Repeated consistent statements could support the inference that the central false account was deliberate.
3. Rugby. Murphy deliberately told the medical experts that he had not played rugby since the injury, although he had returned to regular rugby as a front-row forward by November 2017. His guilty plea and the evidence established contempt in relation to the false information and corresponding verified statements.
4. Arm strength. The court accepted that undated video evidence alone might leave reasonable doubt. However, footage showing post-operative scarring and heavy lifting with the left arm, capable of being dated after surgery and before or shortly after the relevant medical examination, was capable of supporting proof beyond reasonable doubt. Videos 8 and 27, together with the rugby evidence, established that Murphy knowingly gave a false account of severe weakness.
5. Work. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Murphy had resumed or was capable of resuming heavy building work, despite telling four experts that he had not worked since the injury and falsely verifying related assertions in his pleadings and schedule. He intended to deceive the experts and the court and had no honest belief in the truth of those statements.
6. The allegations were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Murphy was in contempt of court for interfering with the due administration of justice by giving false information to four medical experts and for making false statements in the particulars of claim and preliminary schedule of loss. The false information concerned his inability to work, inability to play rugby and significantly reduced left-arm strength.

This was a first-instance committal application. Permission to proceed had been granted by His Honour Judge Picton on 21 July 2023, following which directions were given for trial and the application was heard by Mr Justice Mould.