Jamal Jihazi v Stephen Yaxley Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson)

In contempt proceedings that may lead to imprisonment, the court may proceed with a directions hearing in the defendant’s absence where the defendant had notice, was required to attend, had no good reason for absence, and has had a fair opportunity to be heard. The court must balance procedural fairness with the overriding objective and the need for expeditious progress.

Proceedings remain “existing proceedings” for the purposes of CPR 81.3(5)(a) once commenced, even after judgment or a final order. Permission is therefore unnecessary for a contempt application relating to those proceedings. A bench warrant may be issued in advance under CPR 81.7(2) to secure attendance at a future substantive hearing where non-attendance is reasonably apprehended, provided safeguards preserve the defendant’s opportunity to seek variation or discharge.

The Solicitor General applied for committal proceedings against Stephen Yaxley-Lennon for alleged breaches of an injunction made by Nicklin J in the claimant’s libel proceedings. A directions hearing was listed, but Mr Yaxley-Lennon did not attend.

The court considered whether he had been personally served, whether there was a good reason for his absence, whether the directions hearing should proceed without him, whether alternative service should be authorised, whether permission was required for the contempt application, and whether a bench warrant should issue to secure attendance at the substantive hearing.

1. Proceeding in the defendant’s absence. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal. The principles governing proceeding with a criminal trial in the defendant’s absence, including the need for great caution, were relevant. The defendant had notice of the hearing and the obligation to attend, had no good reason for absence, and had chosen not to engage with the court. The hearing concerned directions only and would not itself determine contempt or punishment. It was fair to proceed, subject to a time-limited right to apply to set aside or vary the order.
2. Substituted service. In view of the difficulties of personal service and the possibility that the defendant was outside the jurisdiction, service by email and through known social media accounts was authorised under CPR 6.15, 6.23 and 81.5.
3. Permission. CPR 81.3(5)(a) did not require permission. The contempt application related to the same High Court proceedings in which the injunction had been made. “Existing proceedings” means proceedings which have come into existence, and does not exclude proceedings in which judgment or a final order has already been given. The court preferred the reasoning in Care Surgical Ltd v Bennetts and Achille v Calcutt to the contrary approach in YSA v Associated Newspapers.
4. Bench warrant. CPR 81.7(2) permitted a warrant to secure attendance at the future substantive hearing. The defendant’s unjustified failure to attend, despite notice and an order requiring attendance, created a real risk of further non-attendance and delay. Issuing the warrant in advance was proportionate, particularly because it would not be executed before October and the defendant could apply to vary or set aside the order.
5. Directions were made for the substantive hearing, including provision for any amended or fresh contempt application to be served with sufficient notice.