Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright (Contempt - Sentencing)

Sentencing for contempt requires an assessment of seriousness by reference to culpability and harm. The court must consider whether a fine is sufficient and, if custody is necessary, impose the shortest term that properly reflects the contempt. Mitigation, admissions, the impact on others and suspension must be considered.

Breach of an anti-suit injunction is ordinarily a serious attack on the administration of justice. The appropriate response remains fact-specific. Where the prohibited proceedings were brought in England, the court’s power to strike them out may materially reduce their continuing harmful effects, but may not adequately punish or deter deliberate and serious contempt.

Following an earlier judgment finding Dr Wright in contempt on five grounds, the High Court considered sentence. The contempts concerned deliberate or reckless breaches of an order restraining the bringing or pursuit of precluded proceedings, including a new claim issued in England.

The court considered the general principles governing contempt sentencing, the specific authorities concerning anti-suit injunctions, the seriousness of the breaches, mitigation, compliance, deterrence and the effect of the defendant’s absence from the jurisdiction. It also considered whether the new claim should be struck out and the appropriate costs orders.

1. Sentence. The court adopted the principles summarised by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15: seriousness is assessed by culpability and harm; a fine must first be considered; custody, if necessary, must be the shortest term properly reflecting seriousness; mitigation and the impact on others must be weighed; credit for admissions is fact-specific; and suspension must be considered.
2. The checklist in Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWCA Civ 1264 identifies aspects of seriousness, including prejudice, pressure, deliberateness, culpability, responsibility for the breach, appreciation of its seriousness, co-operation, acceptance of responsibility, apology, remorse and excuse.
3. Breach of an anti-suit injunction is ordinarily serious because it undermines the administration of justice. The authorities concerning anti-suit injunctions and freezing orders provide useful guidance, but the sentence remains fact-specific. The earlier cases involved proceedings or assets outside the direct control of the English court. Here, the new claim was brought in England and could be struck out directly.
4. The new claim was wholly an abuse of process. Pursuant to CPR 3.3 and 3.4, the court struck out the Particulars of Claim and the whole of the new claim. That substantially reduced the continuing harm, but did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the contempts or the need for deterrence and punishment.
5. Dr Wright’s conduct was deliberate or, at minimum, reckless. The breaches were serious, repeated, calculated to cause substantial harm and accompanied by a lack of co-operation or remorse. A custodial sentence was therefore required. The appropriate sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.
6. The suspension was conditional only on Dr Wright committing no further breach of the order dated 16 July 2024 during the two-year period beginning on 19 December 2024. The court declined to make failure to pay costs a condition, expressing strong doubts that such failure could lawfully be punished by imprisonment.
7. Dr Wright was ordered to pay COPA’s costs of the contempt application and new claim on the indemnity basis, including an interim payment of £145,000 within 14 days. He was also ordered to pay SquareUp’s costs of the new claim.

High Court: The court had previously found Dr Wright in contempt on five grounds in [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch). The present judgment determined sentence and consequential orders.