HM Solicitor General v Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

A coercive element of imprisonment for contempt may be remitted where the contemnor has purged the contempt. In the case of an injunction prohibiting conduct, purging ordinarily requires cessation of the continuing breach, a commitment to comply in future, and reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of past breaches. The court must consider all the circumstances, including proportionality, the rule of law, remorse, the contemnor’s resolve, time served and any special factors. Remorse is relevant but is not an essential precondition. A substantial change in attitude and compliance may justify remission even where remorse has not been expressed.

The defendant had been committed to prison for 18 months less three days after admitting ten contempts involving breaches of an injunction. Four months had been designated as a coercive element, capable in principle of remission if the defendant purged his contempt. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against committal and noted the opportunity for early release.

The defendant applied for remission, relying on removal of offending publications, reasonable efforts to secure removal of republications, and an assurance of future compliance. The Solicitor General did not contend that any continuing breach remained. The issue was whether the coercive element should be remitted despite the defendant’s failure to express remorse or contrition.

1. A person committed to prison for contempt by breaching an injunction may purge the contempt by ceasing continuing breaches, committing to future compliance and taking reasonable steps to mitigate damage caused by past breaches. The court hearing an application for remission must consider all the circumstances and may make such order as it thinks fit under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 81.10(3).

2. The court adopted the relevant factors identified in CJ v Flintshire Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 393, including proportionality of punishment, the interests of the State in upholding the rule of law, genuineness of remorse, resolve not to reoffend, time served and special factors. The punitive component represented proportionate punishment, while the coercive component had achieved its purpose by securing compliance.

3. Absence of remorse pointed against remission, but all other applicable factors pointed in favour. The defendant had done all that he reasonably could to remove offending material and had undertaken future compliance. His changed attitude was a significant factor, consistently with Swindon Borough Council v Webb [2016] EWCA Civ 152.

4. Following McKendrick v Financial Conduct Authority [2019] EWCA Civ 529, the coercive element could in principle be remitted once contempt had been purged. The application was granted. Four months were remitted, leaving a substituted term of 14 months less three days. The defendant remained subject to the injunction and any further breach could lead to a further committal.

• Court of Appeal: The defendant’s appeal against the committal order was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Civ 476. The court noted the opportunity to reduce the custodial period by purging the contempt.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The present court remitted four months of the committal term.