DJ Dodsworth. A useful insight to a district judge level approach to contempt proceedings in financial remedies. H’s failure to file a Form E and CETV for pension.

Summary

W’s application for contempt. In open court. H’s failure to file a Form E and CETV. Application originally heard on 1 March 2024 – on that date DJ Dodsworth proceeded in H’s absence, contempt was found, and a written judgment given. DJ Dodsworth adjourned sentencing for 8 weeks for H to seek legal advice and purge his contempt by filing the documentation necessary. In the 1 March 2024 written judgment DJ Dodsworth made clear that if H had filed the documentation that would be a mitigating factor when considering what, if any, penalty would be imposed for the contempt. At the 1 March 2024 hearing, in light of H’s failure to attend any of the contempt hearings, DJ Dodsworth issued a bench warrant to secure H’s attendance at the sentencing hearing. H was arrested on 22 March 2024, and released (inappropriate to keep him in custody until sentencing hearing on 26 April 2024).

A fresh bench warrant was produced earlier in the week of the sentencing hearing. The police did not produce H, and H did not attend.

Hearing

W informed the court that the parties’ adult son had informed her that H wanted to be sectioned. H had sent W an abusive email. Save for those matters, H had not communicated on the issue and the necessary documents had not been provided. H had not communicated with the court directly and he had not provided to the court an explanation as to why he had not attended.

DJ Dodsworth’s analysis

Options available to the court

1. Prison for up to 2 years.
2. Fine.
3. Confiscate assets.
4. No penalty.

Objectives

1. Ensure future compliance.
2. Uphold the authority of the court.
3. (Of less importance in this case) rehabilitation.

The court’s job was to assess the seriousness of H’s conduct and find a punishment that meets the seriousness.

Reasoning

It is not for the court to try to review other cases of contempt to find similar cases and to transpose the penalties from those cases to this. The court’s job is to assess the seriousness of H’s conduct and to find a punishment that meets that seriousness.

At [9]:

‘I bear in mind in particular the desirability of keeping people out of prison wherever possible, particularly in the current climate where prison places are at a premium.’

At [10]:

‘I bear in mind that imprisonment is only appropriate where there is serious contumacious flouting of orders of the court, such that only a custodial sentence can be justified. I also bear in mind that Wilson Geoffrey Brown has offered no mitigation for his contempt, and has not engaged with the court at all during these contempt proceedings.’

Decision

The contempt and conduct in this case were so serious that a custodial sentence was justified. Suspending the sentence was not appropriate due to the seriousness of the contempt and the fact that H had ignored all opportunities to comply.

The DJ found this to be a case where there had been serious ‘contumacious’ (wilful disobedience) flouting of orders of the court.

Sentence

19 days broken down as follows:

• 14 days for the contempt found.
• 7 days for the failure to promptly comply with the court’s order of 1 March 2024.
• Less 2 days as credit given for the time spent in custody after the bench warrant arrest.

Costs

W awarded costs – summarily assessed on the day.

Factors treated as aggravating

• H had not engaged with the court at all during these contempt proceedings.
• H had multiple opportunities to purge his contempt and file the documentation required, and he had chosen not to do so.
• H offered no mitigation for his contempt.
• H continued to be in breach of the orders.
• H had not filed medical evidence when given the opportunity to do so if the case be that he says he was too ill to attend.