Robert Ian Winsor v Timothy Hull Pattinson

An injunction must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside. Its alleged invalidity is not a defence to deliberate breaches. A contemnor’s right to legal representation does not require indefinite adjournments. Where reasonable opportunities to obtain representation have been given, and the obstacle is the contemnor’s insistence on pursuing irrelevant matters, a fair hearing may proceed. An appeal against a committal order should be confined to the sanction where permission to challenge the earlier contempt finding has been refused. In imposing a contempt sanction, the principal aim is future compliance. Culpability, harm, age, health and the likelihood of further breaches are relevant. A suspended prison sentence may be a merciful but proper order.

Robert Ian Winsor appealed against an order made by Linden J on 4 November 2024. Linden J imposed concurrent four-month terms of imprisonment for 17 breaches of an injunction, suspended for two years subject to compliance with a further injunction, and ordered indemnity costs.

The breaches concerned emails alleging fraud and other criminal conduct by Timothy Hull Pattinson. Earlier, Mr Eardley KC had granted summary judgment on the harassment claim and made a permanent injunction in substantially similar terms: [2024] EWHC 1910 (KB). Bean LJ had refused permission to challenge Linden J’s earlier finding of contempt. The central issues were whether the proceedings should have been adjourned because Mr Winsor was unrepresented and whether the suspended committal order was outside the proper range.

The appeal was dismissed and certified as totally without merit. Lord Justice Edis gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Arnold and Singh agreeing.

1. Binding effect of injunction. An injunction remains effective unless and until set aside by a higher court. The 17 emails were sent by Mr Winsor and amounted to breaches. His belief that he was reporting wrongdoing did not provide a defence. The earlier contempt finding could not be reopened: under [2022] EWCA Civ1135, permission was required to challenge that finding, and Bean LJ had refused permission. The present appeal as of right was therefore confined to the committal sanction.
2. Representation and adjournment. The Court of Appeal’s decision in [2007] EWCA Civ 248 supported an adjournment where there was reason to believe that it would result in representation at committal proceedings. That principle was not unlimited. Mr Winsor had repeatedly been told that legal aid was available, had been given reasonable and final opportunities to obtain representation, and remained unrepresented principally because he insisted that lawyers pursue wider and irrelevant matters. A fair remote hearing remained possible. The High Court had dealt with the issue impeccably, and no further adjournment was required. The court also rejected the suggested reading of [2015] 61 EHRR 9 as requiring the state to provide lawyers for all unrepresented parties. It explained the limited relevance of [2016] 63 EHRR 23.
3. Sanction. The question was whether the suspended committal order fell outside the range properly open to Linden J. The principal aim of contempt sanctions for breach of injunctions is securing future compliance. Culpability was high, although the practical harm was limited by the incoherence of the allegations. Mr Winsor’s age and poor health supported suspension, while his persistent conduct created a substantial risk of further breach. A four-month suspended sentence was merciful, fair and unimpeachable. Immediate imprisonment for the same period would also have been within the proper range.

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. Further questions concerning permission, a possible civil restraint order and costs were left for written submissions.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal against Linden J’s suspended committal order dismissed on 26 March 2025 and certified as totally without merit.
• Court of Appeal, Bean LJ — Permission to challenge the earlier finding of contempt was refused, and related applications were certified as totally without merit.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division, Linden J — Found 17 breaches of the injunction and imposed concurrent four-month committal terms, suspended for two years subject to conditions, with indemnity costs.
• High Court, Eardley KC — Granted summary judgment on the harassment claim and made a permanent injunction in substantially similar terms: [2024] EWHC 1910 (KB).