Lee Mavin v Kare Wyatt

In sentencing for contempt of court, the court must assess culpability and whether the custody threshold is crossed, impose the least term reflecting seriousness, and then consider suspension. The totality principle prevents an excessive aggregate sentence for multiple contempts. Custody is reserved for the most serious breaches, or for less serious breaches where other means of securing compliance have failed. Suspension requires consideration of rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation and harmful impact on others. Repeated, deliberate deception of the court, including forged documents, and serious interference with the administration of justice may justify immediate custody. Mental-health difficulties and family hardship do not require suspension where rehabilitation is unproved and the impact on others is insufficiently significant.

The appellant had been found in contempt on seven counts by HHJ Clarke in the Milton Keynes and Oxford County Court and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. In the earlier appellate judgment, Mavin v Wyatt [2026] EWCA Civ 448, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on two counts, dismissed it on five, and set aside the sentencing decision because a procedural irregularity affected the sentencing exercise.

With the parties’ agreement, the Court of Appeal retained the matter for re-sentencing. The present hearing concerned the appropriate sentence for five deliberate and fraudulent uses of the statutory Breathing Space scheme to delay enforcement of a possession order, and whether imprisonment should be suspended in light of mental-health evidence, remorse, rehabilitation prospects and family impact.

1. Disposition. Baker LJ, with Snowden LJ agreeing, imposed six months’ imprisonment on each of the five remaining counts, to be served concurrently and to take effect immediately. No deduction was made for the earlier custody of less than one day. Under section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, one half of the custodial term would be served in prison before automatic release.
2. Sentencing framework. Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 imposes a maximum term of two years for imprisonment for contempt by a superior court. Applying the framework summarised in Bruce v Wychavon District Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1389, the court first assessed culpability and the custody threshold, then the least period properly reflecting seriousness, and finally whether the term should be suspended. Lovett v Wigan Borough Council (Re Breaches of ASBIs) [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 required custody to be reserved for the most serious breaches, or used only where alternatives were insufficient, and required attention to totality and the shortest term achieving the sentencing purpose.
3. Seriousness. The custody threshold was conceded and plainly crossed. The offending involved repeated, deliberate and sophisticated deception, the use of different debt-advice agencies and, on one occasion, forged government documents. It constituted flagrant interference with the administration of justice and undermined the protective purpose of the Breathing Space scheme. The respondent was deprived of her property and the ability to re-let or sell it for many months. Culpability was high and the harm to the respondent and the administration of justice very serious. Applying the Civil Justice Council approach to culpability and harm, six months was the appropriate starting point and the shortest appropriate term for each offence, with concurrent sentences required by totality.
4. Suspension. The court considered the factors identified in Bruce: a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation and significant harmful impact on others from immediate custody. The psychiatric evidence, recent remorse, difficult personal history, claimed commitment to therapy and the effect on the appellant’s seriously ill father were taken into account. Suspension was refused because therapy had not yet been accessed, the past record gave insufficient confidence in rehabilitation, the personal mitigation was not strong, and the effect on the parents did not reach the required level of significant harmful impact.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). In Mavin v Wyatt [2026] EWCA Civ 448, the court allowed the appeal on counts 6 and 7, dismissed it on the remaining five counts, and set aside the sentencing decision because the procedural irregularity also affected sentencing. The present judgment re-determined the sentence.
• Milton Keynes and Oxford County Court. HHJ Clarke found the appellant in contempt on seven counts and imposed nine months’ imprisonment with immediate effect.