Hood v Department for Transport & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant, a former driving instructor registered with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency ("DVSA"), was subject to an interim injunction granted on 27 January 2023 by the County Court at Portsmouth. The injunction prohibited the Defendant from posting or re-posting on social media content naming or identifying certain DVSA employees and from engaging in conduct amounting to harassment. The Defendant was found to have breached this injunction multiple times, including failing to remove prohibited content and posting fresh material on social media platforms in 2023 and early 2024.

Contempt applications were issued against the Defendant in May 2023 and again in February 2024. The Defendant was given multiple opportunities to comply with court orders and to present evidence but repeatedly failed to do so, including refusing to surrender his mobile phone as directed in court and voluntarily absenting himself from hearings. Following findings of contempt and after considering mitigating factors, HH Judge Glen sentenced the Defendant to three months’ imprisonment for breaches occurring in February 2024.

The Defendant appealed the committal order as of right. He also applied for a stay of the committal order, bail, and a writ of habeas corpus, all of which were refused by Lady Justice Andrews and later by Lord Justice Warby. The appeal against committal and the writ of habeas corpus application were heard together, and the appeal was dismissed with detailed reasons provided in this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant’s breaches of the interim injunction amounted to contempt of court warranting committal to prison.
2. Whether the Defendant’s allegations of perjury and procedural unfairness rendered the injunction and subsequent orders void or unenforceable.
3. Whether the court’s management of access to hearings and the Defendant’s absence violated his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
4. The propriety of the sanction imposed, including the appropriateness of immediate custody versus alternative sanctions.
5. The validity of the Defendant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Alleged that a witness for the claimants, Mr Smith, committed perjury in his witness statement supporting the injunction, rendering the injunction and all subsequent orders null and void.
• Claimed procedural failings including biased judges, refusal to investigate perjury allegations, denial of trial by jury, and failure to allow him to present evidence or attend hearings properly.
• Asserted that the injunction was misapplied because the posts did not enable reasonable identification of the claimants.
• Contended that the court’s requirement to surrender mobile phones was unjustified and that his absence from the hearing was not voluntary.
• Argued that he was forced to act as a litigant in person due to inability to secure legal representation despite extensive efforts.
• Relied on mitigating factors related to his family circumstances to argue against immediate custody.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396	Principle that on an interim injunction application, the court does not determine the truth of evidence but whether there is a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction.	The court applied this principle to explain that the injunction was properly granted on the basis of the written evidence and that its validity does not depend on the truthfulness of the evidence at the interim stage.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the Defendant’s core argument that alleged perjury by Mr Smith rendered the injunction and subsequent orders void. It emphasised that on an interim injunction application, courts do not make factual findings but assess whether there is a serious issue to be tried, referencing the established American Cyanamid principle. The court noted that even if Mr Smith’s evidence contained inaccuracies or falsehoods, this would be addressed at trial, not in interim proceedings, and would not invalidate prior orders.

The court examined the evidence regarding the alleged contradictions in Mr Smith’s accounts and found no credible basis to establish perjury. It also rejected the Defendant’s claims regarding judicial bias and procedural unfairness, finding that the District Judge had not recused himself prior to February 2024 and that the management of courtroom access, including the mobile phone surrender requirement, was reasonable, proportionate, and applied evenly.

The court concluded that the Defendant voluntarily absented himself from hearings and that his lack of legal representation did not result in fundamental unfairness, as he was able to present his case clearly. The court found that the breaches of the injunction were proven to the criminal standard and that the imposed sanction was appropriate, taking into account culpability, harm to claimants, and mitigation.

Regarding the writ of habeas corpus, the court held that the Defendant’s detention was lawful, being pursuant to a competent court order, and that the application lacked any legal foundation.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Defendant’s appeal against the committal order and refused the application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Defendant’s committal to prison for three months stands, reflecting the court’s view that the breaches of the injunction were serious and deliberate. No broader precedent was established beyond affirming established principles regarding interim injunctions, contempt sanctions, and procedural fairness in the context of litigants in person.