Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor

Sentencing for contempt must reflect both punishment and securing future compliance. The court must assess whether imprisonment is necessary, the shortest necessary term, whether execution should be suspended, and the statutory maximum. Seriousness depends principally on culpability and harm to the administration of justice. Deliberate and persistent breaches, lack of remorse and refusal to recognise the authority of the order may justify imprisonment, but health, good character and the desirability of avoiding custody may support suspension. A final suspended committal may be appropriate where the contemnor is given a final opportunity to comply.

The claimant applied to commit the defendant for contempt after deliberate breaches of an injunction restraining communications accusing the claimant, a district judge, of fraud, dishonesty and criminality. Liability was determined on 12 September 2024. Sentence was adjourned to allow the defendant to obtain representation and provide evidence concerning his health and means.

The defendant sought a further postponement and a strike-out, relying principally on his health and his asserted public-interest right to repeat the allegations. The court rejected those applications and considered the appropriate sentence, including the effect of later communications, the defendant’s medical conditions, his lack of remorse and the need to secure compliance.

1. Applications. The application to strike out was rejected. The sentencing hearing proceeded because there had already been delay, the defendant continued to send prohibited communications, and his appeal against the liability order had been dismissed. The application to postpone was totally without merit.
2. Applicable principles. The court adopted the principles summarised by Morris J in All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Ltd & Anor v Hardiman [2024] EWHC 787 (KB). The penalty serves punitive, deterrent and coercive purposes. The court must consider whether imprisonment is necessary, the shortest necessary term, suspension, the two-year maximum, and the desirability of keeping offenders, particularly first-time offenders, out of prison. Seriousness is assessed principally by culpability and harm to the administration of justice. Relevant factors include deliberateness, prejudice, remorse, cooperation, personal circumstances and the contemnor’s appreciation of the order’s seriousness.
3. Assessment. The breaches were deliberate, persistent and a serious, contumacious flouting of the injunction. The defendant’s conduct was aggravated by continuation after further findings of harassment and by his lack of remorse. His health and previous good character were significant mitigation, although there was no medical evidence that they materially reduced culpability. Communications made in the context of the appeal, or to regulatory bodies, were given little or no aggravating weight.
4. Disposition. Four months’ imprisonment was imposed for each of the 17 breaches, concurrently. Execution was suspended for two years on condition that there were no further breaches of the final injunction. The order preserved the defendant’s right to appeal, respond to requests from public or regulatory authorities, and correspond with the SRA and BSB concerning complaints already made, but did not permit fresh correspondence. A civil restraint order was also made, subject to specified exceptions for appeals.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Liability for contempt was determined on 12 September 2024. The defendant’s appeal against that order was dismissed. On 4 November 2024 the court imposed concurrent four-month custodial terms, suspended for two years, and made a civil restraint order.
• Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal, a stay application and three other applications were refused on the papers by Bean LJ on 1 November 2024. The applications were certified as totally without merit.