The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of breaches, and the court held a Newton hearing to settle the extent of the breach.
Held: The defendant was aware that the purpose of the search order was to secure evidence, but had repeatedly and deliberately lied and hidden evidence and tried to destroy and encrypt it.
Lewison J said: ‘the contempts are so serious that only a prison sentence is justified. The period of the sentence must be as short as possible, commensurate with the gravity of the case and in my judgment the shortest sentence that I can impose upon you is a prison sentence of three months.’ The sentence was suspended for eighteen months.
Lewison J
[2010] EWHC 744 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Newton CACD 1982
Where there is a plea of guilty but there remains a conflict between the prosecution and defence as to the facts, the trial judge should approach the task of sentencing in one of three ways: a plea of not guilty can be entered to enable the jury to . .
Cited – Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others ChD 13-Nov-2006
The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding . .
Cited – Pospischal v Phillips CA 20-Jan-1988
Where property was sold, and assets dissipated in breach of a Mareva injunction, an immediate prison sentence was necessary to both protect the plaintiff and punish the defendant. However, the court substituted a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment . .
Cited – Hudson v Hudson CA 23-Mar-1995
The defendant withdrew and spent pounds 20,000 in breach of a Mareva injunction
Held: A sentence of nine months imprisonment was not excessive for a flagrant breach of matrimonial court order. . .
Cited – Aquilina v Aquilina CA 24-Mar-2004
The applicant appealed a sentence of six months imprisonment for breaches of a non-molestation injunction.
Held: The breaches had been non-violent, and the court had not considered whether he was prepared to purge his contempt. A balance had . .
Cited – Hale v Tanner CA 22-Aug-2000
When attaching a power of arrest on a non-molestation order the court should consider attaching it only to that element which restricts violence or proximity rather than to any part relating to harassment. When considering sentence for a breach, the . .
Cited – Gulf Azov Shipping Company v Idisi CA 2001
The defendant was found to have committed a serious breach of a freezing injunction.
Held: A committal order is appropriate where there is serious contumacious flouting of orders of the court. The sentence imposed was three months suspended on . .
Cited – Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others ChD 13-Nov-2006
The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding . .
Cited – M (Children) (Contact Order) CA 11-Apr-2005
Where a contemnor sould be fined but would be unable to pay a fine at the level thought appropriate, that was not a good reason to impose imprisonment. . .
Cited – Heidleberg Graphic Equipment Ltd and Another v Hogan and Others ChD 6-Oct-2004
Mann J considered the sentencing options for a contempt of court in the form of an attempt to undermine a search and seizure order. He said: ‘Freezing orders and search and seizure orders are orders which are not uncommon these days. Where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.408546