Stephen Yaxley-Lennon v HM Solicitor General

This appeal concerned the appropriateness of a custodial sanction imposed for contempt of court after the appellant admitted ten breaches of an injunction made in a libel action. The court considered principles governing extension of time (the Denton approach), the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal (Hertfordshire Investments / Ladd v Marshall principles applied with the overriding objective), and the extent to which subsequent evidence about prison conditions and the appellant's mental health could render the original sanction excessive. The judge below had assessed culpability, harm, aggravating factors (including previous contempts and continuing non‑compliance) and mitigating factors (including a period of prior compliance and the anticipated impact of prison conditions and mental health), and imposed 18 months’ committal less time already spent in custody, dividing the term into punitive and coercive elements.

The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time and admitted fresh evidence in respect of the appellant's changed mental health and evidence about his prison regime, but held that the new material did not show the sanction to be wrong or manifestly excessive. The court refused extension of time in respect of other grounds that were either plainly untenable or wrongly framed (including comparisons with criminal release regimes) and dismissed the appeal.

Background and parties: The appellant, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, admitted ten breaches of an injunction made after a 2021 libel trial brought by Jamal Hijazi. The Solicitor General brought committal proceedings for contempt. The contempt hearing was heard by Mr Justice Johnson on 28 October 2024, who imposed committal of 18 months less three days (to reflect time already spent in custody), dividing the term into punitive and coercive elements. The appellant appealed against sanction and challenged conditions of detention by judicial review (permission refused by Chamberlain J).

Nature of applications: The appellant sought (i) extension of time for his appeal (his appellant’s notice was some 105 days out of time); (ii) permission to adduce fresh evidence, prominently a psychological report (the Connolly report) prepared in February 2025; and (iii) substantive reduction of the sanction on three main grounds: unexpectedly onerous prison conditions, deterioration and newly diagnosed mental health conditions (including ADHD), and differences between release regimes for contemnors and prisoners convicted of crime.

Issues framed: (i) Whether to extend time for appealing and admit fresh evidence; (ii) whether the newly adduced evidence about prison conditions and the appellant's mental health showed the sentencing judge's decision to be wrong or unjust; (iii) whether differences in release regimes were relevant to the sanction.

Reasoning and decision: The court applied the Denton principles to the extension of time application and the established approach to fresh evidence on appeal (CPR r.52.21; Hertfordshire Investments; Ladd v Marshall considerations under the overriding objective). It accepted that parts of the appellant’s fresh evidence should be admitted (Connolly report and evidence from prison officials) and that time could be extended for some grounds because the facts relied upon had not crystallised at the time of sentence. Having considered the admitted fresh material, the court concluded that (a) the judge below had already taken into account the general and specific factors about prison conditions which the appellant now relied on and the new evidence did not demonstrate materially worse conditions; (b) the Connolly report did not disclose a materially different or newly decisive medical picture such as would satisfy the high threshold for reducing an imposed custodial sanction; and (c) it would have been wrong in principle for the sentencing judge to adjust the sanction on the basis of differences between civil contempt release regimes and criminal release regimes. The court therefore dismissed the appeal but granted extension of time and admitted some fresh evidence for consideration.

This is an appeal against sanction for contempt. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court granted an extension of time and admitted fresh evidence as to prison conditions and the appellant’s mental health insofar as those matters had crystallised after sentence, but concluded that the new evidence did not show the judge’s sanction to be wrong or manifestly excessive. The court refused extension of time in respect of grounds that could have been raised earlier or were legally irrelevant (including comparisons with criminal release regimes). The judgment endorsed the sentencing judge’s detailed assessment of culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors and the division of the custodial term into punitive and coercive elements.

Appeal from King’s Bench Division, Media and Communications List, Johnson J: [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB). A related judicial review challenging conditions of detention was refused by Chamberlain J: [2025] EWHC 695 (Admin). The present judgment is the Court of Appeal determination: [2025] EWCA Civ 476.