Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Atinuke Okunola

Where a suspended custodial sentence for contempt is alleged to have been breached, the court must decide whether to activate the sentence already imposed, rather than reconsider the original penalty. The relevant assessment includes culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, compliance with the suspension conditions, rehabilitation prospects and the impact of custody on others. The level of compliance is the predominant consideration. Deliberate, repeated and harmful breaches, particularly after warnings and opportunities to comply, may justify full activation. Personal mitigation, including medical concerns, must be considered but will not necessarily make activation unjust.

The claimants applied to activate a six-month custodial sentence imposed on the defendant for contempt of court. The sentence had been suspended on conditions requiring compliance with injunctions, delivery up of relevant documents and provision of a truthful disclosure statement.

The defendant was alleged to have continued harassing the claimants indirectly, failed to deliver up and delete relevant documents, and provided an inaccurate disclosure. The court considered whether the three breaches were proved beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, whether the suspended sentence should be activated in whole or in part.

1. Breaches proved. The unchallenged evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant breached all three suspension conditions. The abusive and sexually offensive emails constituted indirect harassment. The defendant also failed to deliver up and delete relevant documents and failed to provide a truthful and complete disclosure statement.
2. Applicable approach. The court adopted the approach summarised in Ellis v His Majesty’s Solicitor General [2023] EWCA Civ 585, drawing on Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Co Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392 and Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103. The assessment involves culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating features, the custody threshold, and whether suspension is appropriate.
3. The present question was activation of the sentence already imposed by Chamberlain J. It was not a rehearing of the original contempt proceedings or a fresh assessment of the appropriate penalty.
4. In deciding whether activation would be unjust, the predominant factor was the defendant’s level of compliance with the suspension order. The court also considered personal mitigation, prospects of rehabilitation and the effect of custody on others. The defendant’s culpability and the harm were high. The breaches were deliberate and contumelious, and the defendant had been given repeated opportunities to comply.
5. The defendant’s previous good character and reported history of schizophrenia were taken into account. They did not make activation unjust. The suspended sentence was activated in full. The defendant was ordered to serve six months’ imprisonment, half in custody and half on licence. Partial activation was inappropriate.