Lioubov Macpherson v Sunderland City Council

A court order must be obeyed while it remains in force. A person cannot justify deliberate non-compliance by disagreeing with the order, believing it unlawful, relying on freedom of expression, or asserting that disobedience protects another person. Where an injunction plainly prohibits making or publishing specified material, the material’s content is irrelevant to whether it was knowingly breached. A contempt hearing is not unfair merely because the defendant is unrepresented where she knows of the entitlement to representation, chooses to present her case without seeking an adjournment, and the judge properly considers representation before sentence. Serious, repeated breaches during a suspended sentence may justify immediate custody despite adverse effects on family members.

Lioubov Macpherson appealed against findings that she had breached Court of Protection injunctions and against concurrent three-month prison sentences, together with activation of an earlier suspended sentence. The proceedings concerned restrictions on recording and publishing material identifying her daughter, FP, and the Court of Protection proceedings. Poole J made the committal order on 22 January 2024, reported at [2024] EWCOP 8. The appellant argued that the hearing was unfair, that the injunctions unlawfully restricted her Convention rights and were inconsistent with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and that the sentence was disproportionate. The central issues were whether she was in contempt, whether the hearing was fair, and whether the punishment was fair and proportionate.

Appeal dismissed. The findings of contempt and the sentences were upheld.

1. Contempt. The injunctions prohibited recording FP and relevant care staff and prohibited publication of material concerning FP or the proceedings. The appellant knowingly and deliberately acted in breach of those orders. Her profound disagreement with the orders, assertions that they were unlawful, and complaints about the treatment of FP did not entitle her to disregard them. The court found no merit in the alleged professional misconduct or unlawfulness relied upon.
2. Content of recordings. The Court of Appeal did not need to watch the recordings. The order prohibited the recording and publication themselves, so the content was irrelevant to the appellant’s culpability. The court also found no basis to question Poole J’s assessment that the material demonstrated harm to FP.
3. Convention rights. The appellant could not rely on Article 10 as justification for deliberate breach of the injunction. The fact that publication had been permitted in other family or Court of Protection cases did not assist her.
4. Fairness. Although unrepresented, the appellant knew of her entitlement to funding and chose to argue the case without requesting an adjournment. After finding contempt, Poole J considered whether to adjourn for representation and gave reasons for refusing to do so. The hearing was therefore fair, and there was no evidential basis for the alleged absence of safeguards or essential documents.
5. Sentence. The Court endorsed Poole J’s consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, which accorded with the principles summarised by MacDonald J in Re Dahlia Griffith [2020] EWCOP 46. The breaches were serious, deliberate, repeated, and committed during the suspension of an earlier sentence for similar contempt. Immediate imprisonment was proportionate and appropriate. The need to uphold the authority of the court and discourage flagrant breaches outweighed the adverse effects on FP and the appellant’s husband. The three-month sentence and activation of the earlier 28-day sentence were upheld.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In the present appeal, [2025] EWCA Civ 1159, the appeal against the committal findings and sentence was dismissed.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On a preliminary capacity issue in the appeal, the Court made an interim declaration and referred the issue to the Court of Protection, in [2024] EWCA Civ 1579.
3. Court of Protection: Theis J subsequently held that the appellant had capacity to conduct the contempt proceedings and the appeal, in [2025] EWCOP 18 (T3).
4. Court of Protection: Poole J found the appellant in contempt on 22 January 2024 and imposed three-month concurrent sentences, activating an earlier suspended sentence, in [2024] EWCOP 8.
5. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): An earlier appeal against the first contempt finding and sentence was dismissed in [2023] EWCA Civ 574. The first-instance sentencing judgment was reported at [2023] EWCOP 3.