Nadine Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire

A finding of civil contempt for disobeying a court order requires criminal-standard proof of notice, an intentional act or omission that objectively breached the order, and knowledge of the facts making it a breach. It does not require an intention to commit contempt or to interfere with justice.

The finding of contempt and any sanction are separate stages. A penal notice is relevant to sanction, but is not a condition precedent to a contempt finding. A chief constable sued officially is responsible for the acts and omissions of the police force and its civilian staff under his or her direction and control.

The appellant obtained judgment in County Court proceedings concerning the disclosure of video footage of her arrest. An order of 25 April 2023 required the Chief Constable to disclose all relevant footage and, if footage was unavailable or undisclosable, to provide an explanation in a witness statement from an officer of at least inspector rank.

Her application to hold the Chief Constable in contempt was dismissed by HHJ Genn, who held that the breach was not wilful, that the Chief Constable lacked personal involvement, and that the absence of a penal notice was fatal. She also ordered the appellant to pay costs.

Shortly before the appeal, further body-worn-video files were found. The Chief Constable conceded that previous evidence that all footage had been disclosed was factually wrong and admitted contempt for the purposes of the proceedings. The central issue was the proper test for civil contempt arising from non-compliance with a court order.

Appeal allowed unanimously on all six grounds. Lord Justice Fraser gave the reasons, with whom Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justice Coulson agreed.

1. For civil contempt, the applicant must prove to the criminal standard that the alleged contemnor had notice of the order, intentionally did the relevant act or omitted the required act, and knew the facts which made that conduct a breach. There is no additional requirement that the person intended to disobey the order, commit contempt, or interfere with the administration of justice. Those matters, including an apology and whether the breach was casual or reckless, may matter at the separate sanction stage. This followed the analysis in Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357, İşbilen v Turk [2024] EWCA Civ 568, and Caudrilla Bowman Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9.

2. The Chief Constable was the proper respondent. Under section 2(3) and Schedule 2 paragraph 2 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the Chief Constable is a corporation sole and the police force and its civilian staff are under his or her direction and control. The force's failures to comply with an order made against the Chief Constable in an official capacity are therefore attributable to that office. Personal involvement by the office-holder was not required. Paul Bush v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2024] EWHC 690 (KB), which held otherwise, was wrongly decided.

3. The absence of a penal notice did not bar a contempt finding. A penal notice concerns enforcement and sanction under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including committal. It is not a prerequisite to a finding that an order has been breached contemptuously. In an exceptional case, committal may itself be possible without a penal notice if justice requires it.

4. The April 2023 order was clear and had not been complied with. The required statement was late and was not made by a police officer of the stipulated rank. Relevant footage had not been disclosed. The later discovery of further footage also made the judge's factual finding unsustainable.

5. The costs order against the appellant was wrong in principle. Her application had correctly identified serious non-compliance, while the Chief Constable's factual case was materially false. The finding of contempt was substituted, the adverse costs order was reversed, and questions of sanction and further contempt proceedings were deferred for a further hearing under CPR Part 81.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal on all six grounds and substituted a finding of contempt against the Chief Constable: [2025] EWCA Civ 1397.

• County Court at Central London (HHJ Genn): On 11 April 2024, dismissed the appellant's contempt application and ordered her to pay the Chief Constable's costs. That decision was reversed.

• County Court (DDJ Leong): On 25 April 2023, entered judgment for the claimant and ordered disclosure of all relevant arrest footage, with an inspector-ranked officer's explanation for any unavailable or undisclosable footage.