Timothy Pattinson v Robert Winsor

A person who knows of an injunction and deliberately acts contrary to its terms may be committed for contempt. The validity of the injunction must be treated as established unless and until a court sets it aside; an alleged rightness or public-interest justification for the prohibited conduct does not answer liability.

In deciding whether to postpone sentence, the court must balance fairness to the defendant against prejudice to the claimant and the need to protect the administration of justice. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the potential sentence, access to representation, the availability of medical evidence, the risk of further breaches and the need for an informed sentencing decision.

The claimant, a District Judge, applied to commit the defendant for contempt based on 17 emails sent in breach of an interim injunction made by Steyn J. The injunction prohibited publication of allegations that the claimant had committed fraud, money laundering, theft or other criminal conduct.

The defendant accepted that he knew of the injunction, sent the emails and acted contrary to its terms, but argued that the injunction was invalid and that his communications were justified because they were true, in the public interest and directed to relevant authorities. He also sought further time to obtain legal representation and medical evidence.

The issues were whether the contempt was proved and whether sentence should be imposed immediately or postponed.

1. Liability. The procedural requirements for a contempt application under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 81.4(2), were satisfied. The defendant had notice of the injunction and understood its terms. He admitted sending the 17 emails and accepted that they contravened the order.
2. The court was satisfied to the criminal standard that the defendant knew the relevant facts, deliberately sent the communications and thereby acted contrary to the injunction. His belief that the injunction was invalid or unlawful did not provide an answer to liability. The order had to be treated as valid unless and until set aside by a court. His asserted truth, public-interest purpose and intention to pass information to authorities did not alter the conclusion.
3. The defendant was therefore guilty of contempt of court as alleged.
4. Sentence. The court postponed sentence. Although the claimant had a legitimate interest in prompt protection from continuing harassment, the defendant remained unrepresented and was at risk of immediate imprisonment. A final opportunity to obtain legal representation was appropriate. Further medical evidence might assist in deciding the length of any custodial sentence and whether it should be suspended. The court would also consider a fine, but evidence of means would be required.
5. The defendant affirmed that he would send no further communications breaching the injunction before sentence. Any further breach could aggravate the contempt and result in a more severe sentence. The claimant remained entitled to make a further contempt application concerning later communications. Sentence was reserved to the judge and was to be reconsidered at a later hearing.