Cavan v Bunting

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 August 2022, pursuant to an ex parte application under the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, a Deputy County Court Judge made an order requiring the Appellant to immediately remove and refrain from posting a video entitled "WATCH AND SHARE: Drag Queen Story Time 'HONEST' & 'SPECIAL'" from YouTube and all other social media platforms. The application arose from a protest by the Appellant against an event held on 31 July 2022 at a cultural venue in The City, where the Respondent, an actor and performer known for a drag act, read stories to primary school children accompanied by family members. The video posted by the Appellant contained allegations that drag queens groom children and had been exposed as paedophiles, which led the Deputy County Court Judge to find that the Respondent had been subjected to harassment and to grant the protective order.

The Order was served on the Appellant on 9 August 2022. Despite this, the Appellant continued to post the video on social media on 9, 10, and 11 August 2022. As a result, the Respondent initiated contempt proceedings on 12 August 2022 for breach of the court order. On the day of the contempt hearing, 5 September 2022, the Appellant admitted contempt and removed the material. The court adjourned sentencing to 12 September 2022 and initially imposed a four-month conditional discharge. The Respondent appealed this sentence, and the Court of Appeal set aside the conditional discharge as ultra vires and remitted the case for resentencing. On 5 June 2023, the Deputy County Court Judge imposed a £750 fine with time to pay. The Appellant now appeals this sentencing decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in law by imposing a punitive fine rather than a remedial sentence such as binding the Appellant over to keep the peace.
2. Whether the trial judge failed to take into account material factors and imposed a disproportionate financial penalty.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge erred by imposing a punitive fine instead of a remedial sentence, arguing that the appropriate remedial sanction would have been an order binding the Appellant over to keep the peace.
• The financial penalty imposed was disproportionate as the Appellant accepted the breach at the hearing, purged her contempt by removing the material, committed no further breaches, and had no prior record.

Respondent's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognised the wide discretion it holds in imposing sanctions for civil contempt, including fines, imprisonment, and other remedies. It emphasised that the purpose of civil contempt sanctions is primarily to ensure compliance with court orders but acknowledged that punishment may also be appropriate to uphold the court's authority and deter others.

The court found that the Appellant had committed a deliberate and flagrant breach of the court order by continuing to post the video despite being served with the order requiring immediate removal. The breach was public and attracted significant media attention, reinforcing the need for a sanction that sends a clear message about the importance of obeying court orders.

Rejecting the Appellant’s argument that a remedial sanction such as binding over to keep the peace was appropriate, the court noted that such orders are typically confined to criminal contempt contexts, particularly disturbances in court, and are rarely suitable for civil contempt cases.

The court considered the mitigating factors raised by the Appellant, including the acceptance of breach, removal of the material, absence of further breaches, and lack of prior record. It found these factors had been properly taken into account by the trial judge, who also accommodated the Appellant’s financial circumstances by allowing an extended period to pay the fine.

Overall, the court concluded that the fine imposed was a lawful, proportionate, and justified response to the contumacious breach of the court order.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The trial judge did not err in principle by imposing a punitive fine rather than a remedial sentence, nor did she fail to consider relevant mitigating factors or impose a disproportionate penalty. The decision reinforces the court’s authority to impose fines as a sanction in civil contempt cases involving deliberate breaches of court orders. No new precedent was established; the ruling affirms existing principles regarding the scope of sanctions in civil contempt proceedings.