Medina Housing Association Ltd v Connolly

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant and his then partner were tenants at a residential property owned by Company A. Complaints of anti-social behaviour by the Appellant and his partner were made by other residents, including a resident at a neighbouring property. Company A initiated proceedings seeking possession and an injunction against the Appellant and his partner to prevent assaulting, threatening, or causing nuisance or annoyance to residents or lawful visitors in the locality.

An interim injunction was granted in December 2001, restraining the Appellant and his partner from certain behaviours, with a power of arrest attached until March 2002. The Appellant was arrested for alleged breaches of this injunction, and further evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements, was presented alleging harassment, intimidation, and threats, including threats to kill a resident.

A committal hearing was held in February 2002, resulting in a further injunction with extended terms and dates. The Appellant admitted breaches and was sentenced to imprisonment. In June 2002, during the trial for possession and a permanent injunction, an incident occurred involving the Appellant intimidating a key witness returning to court, leading to his arrest and subsequent contempt proceedings before Judge Thompson QC.

The contempt proceedings involved evidence from witnesses and the Appellant, who was represented by a solicitor instructed at short notice. The judge allowed the solicitor to reserve cross-examination and set a hearing date shortly thereafter. The judge found the Appellant guilty of breaches of the injunction and contempt in the face of the court, imposing concurrent prison sentences.

The Appellant appealed the committal order, raising procedural and substantive grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge failed to follow the correct procedural requirements for committal applications under the relevant court rules and Practice Direction.
2. Whether the injunction had expired prior to the alleged breaches, thus negating liability for breach.
3. Whether the sentence imposed for breach of the injunction and contempt was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge did not comply with procedural requirements, including failure to serve an application notice, absence of supporting written evidence, and lack of clarity regarding allegations, denying the Appellant adequate time to prepare and reflect.
• The injunction expired before the alleged breaches occurred, so no breach was committed.
• The sentence was disproportionate to the conduct, particularly given the Appellant's apology and the nature of the incident involving only staring at a witness.

Respondent's Arguments

• The procedural irregularities were formal rather than substantive and caused no injustice to the Appellant, who had a fair trial and full opportunity to address the allegations.
• The court has discretion to waive procedural defects if no prejudice results, and the judge's approach was consistent with modern case law emphasizing substance over form.
• The injunction was valid and in force on the date of the alleged breaches, which included the whole day of 24th June.
• The sentence was appropriate considering the Appellant's prior conduct and the seriousness of intimidating a witness, which threatens the administration of justice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the judge's procedures in the committal hearing did not fully comply with the formal requirements of Order 29 rule 1 and the Practice Direction, including absence of an application notice and supporting affidavit and insufficient advance notice of allegations. However, applying the modern approach endorsed in M v P and Nicholls v Nicholls, the court emphasized that procedural defects do not invalidate proceedings if no injustice or prejudice results.

The facts of the case were straightforward and undisputed, and the Appellant and his solicitor had full knowledge of the allegations and opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and call evidence. The judge offered additional time to prepare but the Appellant did not seek it. The court found the trial to be fair despite procedural irregularities.

Regarding the injunction's duration, the court applied the general rule of construction that an injunction "until" a specified date includes the whole day. Given that the injunction was expressed to remain in force "until 24 June 2002" and that the trial was fixed for that day, the court held the injunction was effective at the time of the breach.

On the sentence, the court considered the judge's assessment of the seriousness of the Appellant's conduct, including prior threats and breaches, and the intimidation of a witness, which undermines the administration of justice. The court found the sentence was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive.

The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge misunderstood the breaches by referring to them in the plural, noting the judge was aware of the relevant distinctions.

In conclusion, although the procedure was irregular, the Appellant received a fair trial, the injunction was valid at the time of breach, and the sentence was appropriate.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the committal order and the concurrent sentences imposed for breach of the injunction and contempt in the face of the court. The decision confirms that procedural irregularities in committal proceedings will not render orders invalid absent material prejudice or unfairness to the contemnor. The court reaffirmed the principle that injunctions expressed to continue "until" a specified date include that entire day unless clearly stated otherwise. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.