Lockett v Minstrell Recruitment Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, hereafter referred to as Plaintiff, appeals against a sentence of 12 months immediate imprisonment imposed by Judge Snowden on 21 December 2020 for contempt of court due to breaches of court orders. The Respondent, referred to as Defendant, is a recruitment agency providing workers for short-term construction industry engagements.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a recruitment consultant from June 2017 until May 2018, when he left to establish his own company, Company A. A dispute arose regarding the extent to which Plaintiff could solicit Defendant's clients after his departure. This led to Defendant obtaining interim injunctions against Plaintiff, including non-solicitation and non-disparagement orders.

Plaintiff breached these orders, notably by making untrue disparaging remarks about Defendant and its directors on social media and soliciting business contrary to the injunctions. Defendant applied to commit Plaintiff for contempt of court, alleging multiple breaches of the injunctions and related orders. Plaintiff admitted some breaches but contested others. After a thorough hearing, Judge Snowden found Plaintiff in contempt and imposed the custodial sentence. Plaintiff appeals only the sentence, not the findings of breach.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 12 months immediate imprisonment for contempt of court was appropriate and within the range of reasonable judicial discretion.
2. The extent to which mitigating factors, including Defendant's misconduct and Plaintiff's mental health and admissions, should reduce the sentence.
3. Whether the court should substitute the immediate custodial sentence with a suspended sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was plainly wrong and outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge.
• Insufficient reduction was given for Defendant's misconduct, including the dishonest conduct of Defendant's employee that led to false allegations against Plaintiff.
• The absence of financial harm to Defendant should mitigate the sentence.
• Plaintiff's poor mental health and fragile state should be taken into account.
• Plaintiff's admissions of contempt and the impact of Covid-19 conditions in prison justify a reduced sentence.
• Requested substitution of the immediate custodial sentence with a suspended sentence.

Respondent's Arguments

• Appellate court should be reluctant to interfere with the sentencing judge's discretion.
• No error of principle, immaterial consideration, or failure to consider material factors by the sentencing judge.
• The sentence imposed was within the reasonable range given the serious and deliberate breaches.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that Plaintiff knowingly and deliberately breached the court’s injunctions, particularly by making untrue disparaging remarks about Defendant and its directors. The breaches were serious, persistent, and motivated by Plaintiff’s attempt to counter a bankruptcy petition filed against him. The court emphasised that contempt damages the administration of justice regardless of financial loss.

The court found mitigating factors, notably Defendant's misconduct, including the dishonest conduct of Defendant’s employee who fabricated evidence leading to false allegations against Plaintiff, and a campaign of harassment against Plaintiff by persons linked to Defendant. These factors justified a material reduction in sentence.

The court also considered Plaintiff’s mental health and the adverse effects of imprisonment during the Covid-19 pandemic, acknowledging these as relevant mitigating factors but not sufficient to avoid immediate custody. The court rejected Plaintiff’s argument for a suspended sentence given the deliberate and persistent nature of the breaches and lack of genuine remorse.

Ultimately, the court found the original 12-month sentence to be at the upper end of the range but concluded that a reduction to 8 months was appropriate to reflect the mitigating circumstances more adequately.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is ALLOWED IN PART. The court substitutes the original sentence of 12 months immediate imprisonment with a sentence of 8 months immediate imprisonment.

This decision reduces the custodial sentence to better reflect mitigating factors, including misconduct by Defendant and the impact of Covid-19 prison conditions, while upholding the principle that serious, deliberate contempt of court warrants immediate custody. No suspended sentence was granted, reaffirming the seriousness with which breaches of court orders are treated. The ruling does not establish new precedent but clarifies the application of sentencing principles in contempt cases involving complex factual and procedural contexts.