Yaxley-Lennon v HM Solicitor General

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns an appeal against a sanction for contempt of court. The Appellant was previously restrained by an injunction following a libel trial in 2021, which prohibited him from repeating defamatory allegations. He admitted breaching this injunction ten times in 2024, leading to a committal sanction of 18 months' imprisonment, reduced by time already served. The Appellant was detained at two prisons and subsequently sought judicial review challenging the lawfulness of his detention conditions and appealed the sanction as excessive. The appeal was initially out of time, and the court considered applications for extension of time and admission of fresh evidence. The appeal hearing took place in April 2025, with the court reserving judgment and later delivering its decision.

The libel action arose from videos published by the Appellant in 2018 containing defamatory allegations against a minor, which led to a successful libel claim and an injunction prohibiting further publication of the defamatory material. Subsequent breaches of the injunction in 2023 and 2024 resulted in multiple contempt applications and eventual admission of contempt by the Appellant.

The sanction hearing was conducted by Mr Justice Johnson, who imposed an immediate custodial sentence with punitive and coercive elements, reflecting the serious nature of the breaches and the Appellant's history of contempt findings. The Appellant challenged the sanction and his detention conditions through judicial review and appeal proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sanction imposed for contempt was excessive, particularly in light of the conditions of the Appellant's detention.
2. Whether the Appellant's mental health, including a new diagnosis of ADHD, warranted reconsideration of the sanction.
3. Whether differences in release regimes between civil contempt detention and criminal sentences were relevant to the sanction imposed.
4. Whether an extension of time to appeal and admission of fresh evidence were justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The prison conditions faced were unexpectedly harsh and inadequately reflected in the sentencing judge’s reasoning.
• The Appellant’s mental health was worse than previously understood, including a diagnosis of ADHD, which should influence the sanction.
• The differences in release regimes between civil contempt detention and criminal sentences resulted in harsher treatment for the Appellant.
• Applications were made to extend time for appeal and to admit fresh evidence, including expert psychological reports and witness statements about prison conditions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent resisted the extension of time for appeal except in limited respects and opposed most of the fresh evidence application.
• Cross-applications were made to admit evidence regarding prison conditions.
• It was argued that the sanction was appropriate, reflecting the Appellant’s high culpability, harm to the administration of justice, and prior contempt findings.
• The respondent maintained that differences in release regimes were not relevant to the sanction imposed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed review of the factual and legal context surrounding the contempt sanction. It acknowledged the high culpability of the Appellant, the medium-to-high level of harm caused, and the aggravating factors including prior contempt findings and ongoing breaches despite pending proceedings. Mitigating factors such as prior compliance, the impact of prison conditions, and the Appellant’s mental health were carefully weighed.

The court considered the prison conditions evidence, including the Appellant’s segregation for safety and access to various facilities and communication methods. It found that conditions were not materially harsher than anticipated at the time of sentencing and rejected the contention that the Appellant was subjected to solitary confinement or excessive isolation beyond what was foreseen.

Regarding mental health, the court admitted fresh evidence of a diagnosis of ADHD and ongoing trauma-related conditions. However, it concluded that this new evidence did not materially affect the appropriateness of the sanction, as the existing evidence and reasoning already accounted for mental health considerations. The diagnosis did not demonstrate a significant new factor warranting reduction.

The court also addressed the differences in release regimes between civil contempt and criminal sentences, holding that these were irrelevant to the sanction decision. The judge’s refusal to consider these differences was not erroneous, as release regimes are not a factor in determining sentence length or sanction appropriateness.

Applications for extension of time to appeal were granted selectively where justified by new evidence or circumstances, and refused where grounds were abandoned or clearly without merit. The court emphasized the principles from precedent, including the Denton framework for relief from sanctions and the established approach to fresh evidence on appeal.

Overall, the court found no error of law or procedural irregularity that would render the sanction wrong or unjust. The sanction was within the reasonable range of decisions available to the court, reflecting a balanced and principled approach to the unique context of contempt sanctions.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL against the sanction for contempt of court.

The court refused extensions of time for some grounds of appeal and granted them for others, admitting fresh evidence accordingly. However, none of the grounds provided a basis to reduce or vary the sanction imposed by the sentencing judge.

The immediate effect is that the sanction of 18 months’ custody (less time served) stands unchanged. The Appellant retains the option to reduce custodial time by purging contempt through compliance with the injunction. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision reinforces established principles governing contempt sanctions, the limited relevance of post-sentencing developments, and the treatment of fresh evidence and extension of time applications in this context.