Janice Elizabeth Turner & Anor v Mark Gary Coates

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to his committal for civil contempt and the lengthing of the civil sentence. Key legal principles applied were that civil contempt jurisdiction is separate from any criminal proceedings (Barnet LBC v Hurst) and that a stay of civil contempt proceedings is only required where there is a real risk of prejudice which might lead to injustice. The court held there is no general rule that parallel criminal proceedings require a stay; the differing objectives and sentencing ranges of civil and criminal processes mean inconsistent findings are not necessarily unjust. The district judge did not err in proceeding with the contempt hearing and in treating the many proven breaches as distinct incidents for sentencing. The judge applied the structured approach to culpability and harm, considered the totality principle and reduced the aggregate sentence to 448 days; the Court of Appeal found that sentence to be within the available range and refused to interfere.

Background and procedural posture:

• The claimants were neighbours who obtained orders and injunctions following a five‑day trial on 22 September 2022 resolving boundary and harassment issues, including damages and prohibitions on threatening behaviour and filming.
• After breaches, a first committal hearing in October 2023 resulted in findings of contempt and a custodial sentence which the Court of Appeal partly reduced on 12 December 2023 (Turner v Coates [2023] EWCA Civ 1487), ordering the appellant's release.
• A second contempt application alleged 20 breaches between April 2023 and June 2024, including physically threatening conduct, attempts to run a neighbour over, threats to kill, and damaging roof tiles on the claimants' house.
• The appellant faced parallel criminal charges arising from some of the same events; he was convicted at a criminal trial on 29 November 2024 of criminal damage and later sentenced, the criminal sentencing judge taking account of the civil contempt findings.

Nature of the application and issues:

• The appeal challenged (i) the refusal to stay the civil contempt proceedings in the face of parallel Crown Court proceedings and (ii) the judge's decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent civil contempt sentences.

Court's reasoning on the stay point:

• The court relied on Barnet LBC v Hurst and Lomas v Parle to explain that civil contempt jurisdiction is inherently different to criminal prosecution; prompt civil enforcement is important and a stay is only appropriate where there is a real risk of prejudice likely to cause injustice.
• The court rejected the submission that inconsistent criminal acquittals demonstrate that hearing the civil case first was unjust; differing evidence and procedural objects can produce different outcomes without unfairness.
• The court also emphasised procedural points: the refusal to stay made on 12 August 2024 was not appealed in time and the appellant had not sought relisting under the relevant civil procedure rule.

Court's reasoning on sentencing:

• The judge applied a structured approach considering culpability and harm for each breach (drawing on the approach in Lovett v Wigan County Council), imposed individual sentences for distinct incidents, and then applied the totality principle to reduce the aggregate from 546 to 448 days.
• The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to view the breaches as distinct and that the overall sentence was within the permissible range; the alternative approach of a single aggregate sentence would have produced a similar result.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed on both grounds.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that (1) civil contempt proceedings need not be stayed merely because parallel criminal proceedings exist; a stay is only required where there is a real risk of prejudice leading to injustice, and no such risk arose here (Barnet LBC v Hurst, Lomas v Parle). The judge did not err in continuing with the contempt hearing. (2) On sentencing, the judge properly applied a structured assessment of culpability and harm, treated distinct incidents as separate for sentencing while applying the totality principle to reduce the aggregate, and the resulting 448‑day sentence was within the permissible range; the appellate court would not interfere.

This is an appeal from the County Court at Hastings (order of Her Honour Judge Venn dated 17 September 2024 committing the appellant for civil contempt). There was an earlier Court of Appeal decision arising from the first committal application: Turner v Coates [2023] EWCA Civ 1487. The present appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on 14 May 2025 and judgment was handed down on 25 June 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 782).