EBK v DLO

Permission to bring committal proceedings for alleged contempt under Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 12 requires a strong prima facie case. The court must also consider the public interest, proportionality, fairness and the overriding objective.

Section 12 does not, without more, prohibit repeating allegations of abuse to an MP, the police or others merely because similar allegations were made in private family proceedings. A summary of an order is generally protected by s 12(2). Committal proceedings should not be permitted where the alleged contempt is weak, the relevant events have already been litigated, further proceedings would be oppressive or disproportionate, and they would serve no public or practical benefit.

The claimant sought permission for a second application to commit the defendant for contempt. He alleged that a letter sent by the defendant to a Member of Parliament in August 2020 published information relating to concluded private child-arrangements proceedings, contrary to s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.

The claimant relied on references in the letter to orders, family-court decisions and matters concerning the proceedings. Related events had already been considered in family proceedings, police litigation and an earlier committal application. The central issues were whether there was a strong prima facie case and whether permission was required in the public interest, having regard to proportionality, fairness and the overriding objective.

1. Permission refused. The claimant failed to show a strong prima facie case that the letter constituted contempt under s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
2. Section 12 may apply to a letter sent to an MP. It prohibits publication of an account of what occurred before a judge sitting in private, but it does not prevent a person from making allegations of abuse, including alleged criminal conduct, merely because those allegations were also made in family proceedings. Failure to publish a balanced account is not itself contempt. References to non-molestation orders, a domestic-abuse programme and child-arrangements orders could arguably be summaries of orders protected by s 12(2).
3. The permission stage is not a determination of the merits. The court must nevertheless assess whether there is a strong prima facie case and must consider the public interest, proportionality, fairness and the overriding objective. Relevant considerations include the strength of the evidence, the significance and actual use of the statement, the likely costs and court time, and the consequences of further proceedings.
4. The alleged references to the family proceedings were unlikely to have caused the claimant’s arrest or interfered with the conduct of the child-arrangements proceedings. The principal information and documents supplied to the police concerned allegations of abuse and came directly from the defendant.
5. Further committal proceedings would revisit matters already litigated, impose disproportionate costs and burdens, provide no benefit to the claimant, child or court, and risk oppressive use of litigation in the context of further family proceedings. The court therefore refused permission and preserved the anonymity of the parties and child, balancing their Article 8 rights against Article 10 rights.

First-instance decision. The judgment records a previous refusal of permission in related committal proceedings by Mostyn J, but this was a separate application concerning a different alleged publication.