Nadine Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

A court order cannot be varied by agreement between the parties; an application must be made to the court. Repeated and serious breaches of court orders, including by a public authority responsible for upholding the rule of law, may require a sanction beyond the finding of contempt. Imprisonment of an official defendant for breaches committed predominantly by those acting on the defendant’s behalf may be unavailable in principle and unnecessary. The appropriate sanction depends on all aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the duration and seriousness of the breaches, repeated inaccurate evidence, and the effect of any fine on public services.

The appellant’s substantive appeal had been allowed in [2025] EWCA Civ 1397. This consequential judgment concerned sanctions for breaches of orders made by the County Court and the Court of Appeal.

The respondent Chief Constable failed to comply with deadlines and disclosure requirements, including requirements concerning witness statements and video evidence. The Court had already recorded a finding of contempt. It therefore had to decide whether further sanction was required, whether imprisonment was available or appropriate for an official-capacity defendant, and, if so, what sanction should be imposed.

1. Further sanction. Lord Justice Fraser, with Lord Justice Coulson and Lady Justice Asplin agreeing, held that the failure to comply with the Court of Appeal’s order was serious. A party cannot vary an order of the Court of Appeal by agreement, and any variation must be sought from the court by an appropriate application. The continuing breaches were particularly grave because they followed an earlier finding of contempt and an acknowledgment of the importance of compliance.
2. Imprisonment. The court declined to decide whether Chief Constables stand in the same position as Ministers of the Crown. The comparison would require detailed consideration of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the County Police Act 1839 and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. That analysis was unnecessary. The Chief Constable was sued in his official capacity and was vicariously responsible for those acting in the police force and legal department. Most of the conduct was theirs rather than his personally. Imprisonment was therefore unavailable in principle on these facts and unnecessary.
3. Assessment of sanction. A finding of contempt alone was insufficient. The court considered the prolonged breaches, repeated inaccurate statements, the public funding of police forces and the consequent effect of a fine on front-line policing. Those mitigating considerations did not remove the need for an additional sanction.
4. Disposition. A fine of £50,000 was imposed on the Chief Constable. The court distinguished the analogy with R (Bempoa) v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWHC 153 (Admin), because the respondent’s public law-enforcement role and the circumstances of the arrest made the comparison inapposite. The court considered M v Home Office [1994] UKHL 5; [1994] 1 AC 377 but left the precise legal comparison between Ministers and Chief Constables undecided.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the substantive appeal was allowed for reasons given in [2025] EWCA Civ 1397. In this consequential judgment, the court imposed a £50,000 fine for further breaches of court orders and declined imprisonment.
• County Court at Central London: the judgment identifies earlier orders of the County Court, including an order of Deputy District Judge Leong dated 25 April 2023, but gives no citation for the underlying decision.