The Chief Constable of Kent Police & Anor v Daryll Sturgess Taylor

A person is guilty of contempt for deliberately failing to comply with a clear and unambiguous court order where the order was properly served, the person knew of its requirements, and compliance was within their power. Sentencing for contempt adopts an approach analogous to criminal sentencing. The court assesses culpability and harm, considers whether a fine is sufficient, and imposes the shortest custodial term that properly reflects the seriousness of the contempt where custody is necessary. A committal may also seek to encourage belated compliance. Suspension is available in a wider range of circumstances than in criminal cases, but requires justification on the facts.

The claimants applied to commit the defendant for contempt arising from his alleged breaches of mandatory injunctions made by Saini J in an underlying breach of confidence claim. The orders required him to provide specified information about inadvertently disclosed police videos and to submit his media devices for independent inspection and permanent deletion of the videos.

The application had previously been determined in the defendant’s absence by Steyn J, whose decision on liability was later set aside when it emerged that the defendant had been detained on an unrelated criminal matter. Mrs Justice Collins Rice reheard the application. The central issues were whether the orders were clear, properly served and known to the defendant, whether compliance was within his power, whether his non-compliance was deliberate, and what penalty was appropriate.

1. Liability. The orders were clear and unambiguous, had been properly served, and the defendant knew what they required. The required acts were within his power by the deadlines. He deliberately chose not to comply. The criminal standard of proof was applied, and the defendant was found guilty of two contempts: failure to swear and serve the required affidavit, and failure to attend with his devices for independent inspection and deletion of the police videos (paras [5]-[10], [17]).
2. Sentencing approach. The court applied the guidance in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, Liverpool Victoria Insurance v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392, Deutsche Bank v Sebastian Holdings [2022] EWHC 2057 (Comm) and Crystal Mews v Metterick & Ors [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch). The seriousness of contempt is assessed by culpability and harm. The court first considers whether a fine is sufficient. If custody is necessary, it imposes the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the contempt, while taking account of mitigation, the impact on others, admissions and the possibility of suspension (paras [13]-[17]).
3. The purposes of a penalty may include punishment for past disobedience, securing future compliance and deterrence. Relevant factors include prejudice, pressure, deliberateness, culpability, the conduct of others, appreciation of seriousness, cooperation, responsibility, apology, remorse and reasonable excuse (para [15]). Suspension is available in a wider range of circumstances than in criminal cases and may ordinarily be used to encourage compliance, but no justification for suspension existed where there had been complete and defiant non-compliance (paras [16], [28]).
4. The defendant’s culpability was high. The risk to confidential information concerning a vulnerable minor and the claimants’ inability to verify deletion constituted serious harm, although there was no evidence that the defendant had breached the separate prohibition on accessing, disclosing or using the videos and actual third-party harm was limited (paras [18]-[23]). A custodial penalty was therefore required. Six months’ imprisonment was the minimum necessary and proportionate term. The terms for the two closely related contempts were concurrent, but the sentence was consecutive to the sentence being served for the unrelated offence. Automatic release applied after three months, and the defendant could apply for remission if he later complied or cooperated (paras [24]-[29]).

The application was first heard in the defendant’s absence by Steyn J, who gave judgment on liability in [2023] EWHC 2687. That decision was set aside after it emerged that the defendant had been detained on an unrelated criminal matter.

High Court (King’s Bench Division): the application was reheard and the defendant was found guilty of two contempts and committed to prison for six months.