Greg Hazeltine, Re

Contempt in the face of the court includes conduct creating a real risk of interference with, or prejudice to, the due administration of justice. The criminal standard of proof applies. The court may proceed of its own initiative under rule 37.6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

In determining sanction, the court must assess seriousness by culpability and harm, consider whether a fine is sufficient, and impose the shortest custodial term that properly reflects the contempt where custody is necessary. Double jeopardy prevents punishment for conduct for which the contemnor has already been criminally punished. Repeated abuse, threats and disruption of family hearings may justify immediate custody, even where the contemnor has admitted the contempts and expressed remorse.

The court initiated proceedings under rule 37.6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 alleging nine contempts during three family hearings concerning proceedings under the Children Act 1989 and the Family Law Act 1986.

The allegations concerned repeated abusive and threatening conduct towards judges and other participants, disruption of hearings, refusal to leave court, and a physical assault on a judge. Three matters had already resulted in criminal convictions and a three-year term of imprisonment. The central issues were whether the remaining conduct amounted to contempt, whether any penalty was barred by double jeopardy, and what sanction was proportionate.

1. Contempt established. The court found, to the criminal standard of proof, that all nine allegations were proved. Contempt in the face of the court consists of an act or omission creating a real risk of interference with, or prejudice to, the due administration of justice. The court may deal with such contempt of its own initiative under rule 37.6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
2. The defendant’s repeated insults, threats, interruptions and aggressive conduct were intended to disrupt, or had the foreseeable consequence of disrupting, the administration of justice. The conduct undermined the dignity and authority of the court and caused fear and distress to judges, lawyers, parties and court staff.
3. Double jeopardy. The principle that a person should not be tried or punished twice for the same conduct applies in civil contempt proceedings. No separate penalty could therefore be imposed for allegations 3, 8 and 9, which had already resulted in criminal convictions. The serious physical assault was not punished again.
4. Sanction. The court applied the sentencing approach identified in HM Attorney General v Crosland. It considered culpability, harm, repetition, mitigation, the admissions, remorse, neurodiversity, mental ill-health, the existing criminal sentence and the need for proportionality. The purpose of the sanction was to mark the court’s disapproval and deter similar conduct.
5. The contempts were individually so serious that immediate custody was required. The court imposed five months’ imprisonment for the six contempts requiring punishment, with concurrent terms where appropriate. The term was consecutive to the existing three-year sentence.

First-instance contempt proceedings in the High Court (Family Division), transferred from the Family Court sitting in Milton Keynes. The judgment records a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), but no appeal had occurred.