Scott Dylan v Barclays Bank PLC

In contempt sentencing, a deliberate breach of a freezing order may justify immediate custody because it attacks the administration of justice, even where the precise value of transferred assets is uncertain. The two-year maximum is not reserved for the worst imaginable contempt. Comparisons with other committal sentences are generally unhelpful unless the cases are closely related. An appellate court intervenes only for an error of principle, material omission or reliance on an immaterial factor, or a sentence outside the reasonable range. Personal mitigation and prison overcrowding are relevant, but do not require avoidance of immediate custody where the contempt warrants it. Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines do not apply directly to committal. A late admission attracts credit proportionate to its timing and the trial savings achieved.

Barclays Bank plc brought proceedings alleging that Mr Dylan and others had conspired to exploit automated banking processes to obtain unauthorised borrowings. Freezing orders were made against the defendants. In breach of those orders, companies in the group transferred almost all their subsidiaries to companies in the British Virgin Islands.

Mr Dylan admitted two counts of knowingly assisting breaches shortly before giving evidence at the committal trial. The remaining counts against him were not pursued. On 30 October 2024, Rajah J sentenced him to 22 months’ immediate imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, after allowing 5% credit for the admission. He refused to suspend the sentence. The appeal concerned the length of sentence, mitigation, the value of the transferred assets, suspension and comparison with the sentences imposed on the other defendants.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. The sentence imposed by Rajah J was within the range of reasonable decisions open to him.

1. Appellate threshold. The Court would interfere with a contempt sentence only for an error of principle, reliance on an immaterial factor or failure to consider a material factor, or a decision plainly outside the reasonable range: Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 392, at [44].
2. Seriousness and comparison. The maximum two-year sentence is not reserved for the worst conceivable contempt. A broad range of conduct may justify a sentence at or near the maximum: Financial Conduct Authority v McKendrick [2019] EWCA Civ 524, at [40]. A freezing-order breach attacks the administration of justice and usually merits an immediate sentence of some substantial amount: Templeton Insurance Limited v Thomas [2013] EWCA Civ 35, at [42]. Comparisons with other cases are ordinarily unhelpful unless the cases are so closely related that inconsistency is a real issue: Thursfield v Thursfield [2013] EWCA Civ 840, at [33]. The comparison with HM Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 did not assist because it concerned a different type of order and lower-category harm.
3. Value and proof. Matters adverse to a contemnor, or tending to increase the seriousness of the conduct, must be established to the criminal standard: Gulf Azov Shipping Co Ltd v Idisi [2001] EWCA Civ 21, at [16], citing Z Bank Ltd v D1 [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 656, at p.667. The judge did not rely on the precise asset value as the primary source of harm. The deliberate transfer of virtually all group assets, frustrating the freezing orders, was sufficient. The defendants’ positive case that the assets were insignificant created at least an evidential burden, which their caveated and inconsistent valuations did not discharge.
4. Mitigation and suspension. The judge expressly considered personal mitigation, mental health evidence, family impact, prison conditions and other relevant matters. A complaint that insufficient weight was given to matters expressly considered discloses no appealable error: Solicitors Regulation Authority v Khan [2022] EWCA Civ 287, at [41]. Prison overcrowding is relevant but cannot justify avoiding immediate custody where that is the appropriate sentence: Ouajjou v Ahmad [2024] EWCA Civ 1480, at [30]. Delay caused substantially by contesting the allegations could not carry significant mitigating weight: Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392, at [67].
5. Sentencing approach. The approach in HM Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 required assessment of culpability and harm, consideration of the custody threshold and shortest proper term, mitigation and early admission, followed by consideration of suspension. Magistrates’ guidelines for the wider range of orders available in the magistrates’ court did not apply directly. The refusal to suspend was within the reasonable range.
6. Admission and distinction between defendants. An admission on the fifth day of trial produced limited trial savings and properly attracted only a 5% reduction. The judge dealt separately with Mr Dylan and the other defendants. The concurrent 22-month terms were therefore upheld.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed; the order and sentence were upheld, [2025] EWCA Civ 20.
2. High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Business List (ChD): Rajah J found relevant facts concerning Mr Dylan’s admitted contempt and, on 30 October 2024, imposed concurrent 22-month terms of immediate imprisonment on the two counts. The judgment followed liability proceedings decided on 31 July 2024 in claims BL-2021-001939 and BL-2021-002082.