Anonymised Summary of the Appellate Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against a finding of contempt of court and a sentence of imprisonment imposed in the Court of Protection. The central persons and entities are anonymised as follows: the Appellant (the mother) and the Protected Party (the Appellant's adult daughter).

The Protected Party is a woman in her mid-thirties with a history (diagnosed in childhood) of cerebral palsy, later meningitis, and a subsequent diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. The Appellant has for many years been in significant dispute with the professionals involved in the Protected Party's care.

The Local Authority commenced Court of Protection proceedings. The Appellant contested capacity: she maintained that the Protected Party did not lack capacity. After a contested hearing, Judge Moir (in 2020) declared that the Protected Party lacked capacity to conduct proceedings and to make decisions about residence, care arrangements and contact. Although that judgment is not in the appeal papers, later passages report that Judge Moir made adverse findings about the Appellant's conduct (including abusive behaviour towards care staff) and described the relationship between mother and daughter as "enmeshed," finding that the relationship dynamics increased the Protected Party's distress and harmed her mental health.

Judge Moir ordered that it was in the Protected Party's best interests not to be cared for at home by the Appellant and that she be moved to a care home. Injunctive orders were made preventing the Appellant from recording the Protected Party or care staff and from publishing information about the proceedings. The Appellant's application for permission to appeal those orders was refused.

On 30 June 2022, following further contested proceedings, Judge Poole suspended face-to-face contact between the Appellant and the Protected Party and renewed and extended injunctive relief. The extended order (endorsed with a penal notice) included prohibitions that the Appellant should not:

• record the Protected Party by video or audio in any way;
• record, by video, audio or photograph, staff from the placement or other health or social care staff concerned with the Protected Party;
• publicise the proceedings or any evidence filed in them on social media, YouTube or any internet platform or website;
• publish on social media, video or streaming services any video or audio recording of the Protected Party recorded at any date.

The Appellant's application to this Court for permission to appeal that order was dismissed as "totally without merit."

In November–December 2022 the Local Authority issued three applications for committal for contempt alleging breaches of the June 2022 order (initially 11 alleged breaches; five were pursued). The breaches were said to include uploading videos of telephone conversations with the Protected Party and posting links to related videos and articles. At the hearing on 8 December 2022 the Appellant (represented by counsel) admitted breaches; the hearing was adjourned to consider sentence. On 16 January 2023 counsel reported that the Appellant had removed the recordings from the internet that day.

On 20 January 2023 Judge Poole delivered a sentencing judgment (reported at [2023] EWCOP 3). He found that the Appellant's conduct had been deliberate, that she treated the court's orders as unjust and refused to comply, and that the published recordings showed conduct harmful to the Protected Party — in particular manipulation of conversations and prompting of persecutory ideas — given the Protected Party's diagnosis. Although the judge found no evidence that the Protected Party was aware her conversations had been published, the Protected Party's litigation friend had given evidence that the Protected Party had said the Appellant might be sent to prison for posting things online.

Judge Poole concluded that only imprisonment would meet the seriousness of the contempt but, because immediate imprisonment would likely harm the Protected Party and the Appellant's husband and because the recordings had been removed, he passed concurrent sentences of 28 days on each of five counts and suspended them for 12 months.

The Appellant appealed that finding of contempt and sentence; the Court of Appeal (Judges Jackson, Dingemans and Laing) dismissed the appeal on 4 May 2023 (reported at [2023] EWCA Civ 574).

On 19 June 2023 Judge Poole renewed the injunctive orders in the same terms (again with a penal notice). The Appellant's further application for permission to appeal that renewal was dismissed as totally without merit. After that dismissal the Appellant sent an email to the Civil Appeals Office indicating she intended to reinstall deleted posts and upload further videos.

On 15 November 2023 the Local Authority issued a further committal application alleging repeated contraventions in September 2023. The judge summarised the allegations (set out below in paraphrased form):

1. On 3 September 2023 the Appellant posted a link to an article (originally posted 23 August) referring to alleged mistreatment of the Protected Party and to a "corrupt" legal system and showing video recordings of the Protected Party and of the Appellant speaking to her (the Protected Party's voice being recorded).
2. On 4 September 2023 the Appellant posted a link to an article which contained links to documents filed within the court proceedings (attachments included to a letter to a third-party project).
3. On 7 September 2023 the Appellant posted a link to an article (also containing material dated 26 October 2022) which included a video apparently the same as another alleged posting.
4. Also on 7 September 2023 the Appellant posted on X (formerly Twitter) links to two videos with the Protected Party's face pixelated.
5. On 16 September 2023 the Appellant posted to X a link to a video on her YouTube account (uploaded June 2021) recording the Appellant on the phone to the Protected Party on loudspeaker.
6. On 17 September 2023 the Appellant posted to X a link to another YouTube video (uploaded February 2021) recording the Appellant on the phone to the Protected Party on loudspeaker.
7. On 17 September 2023 the Appellant posted to X a further link to a YouTube video (uploaded October 2022) again recording a phone conversation with her daughter.

The committal hearing on 22 January 2024 took place while the Appellant was in France; she attended remotely, said she was prepared to argue her own case and did not seek an adjournment for representation.

Judge Poole observed that four of the alleged breaches involved reposting material that had previously been posted in contempt proceedings. The judge summarised that the cumulative effect of the posts was to name the Protected Party by first name, identify her as the Appellant's daughter and to link the content to the Court of Protection proceedings; the posts named the placement and professionals involved and included links to documents within the proceedings, thereby easily identifying the Protected Party as the subject of the proceedings.

Although the Appellant accepted she had acted as alleged, she denied breaching the injunctions. She advanced several defences: an Article 10 right to freedom of expression, assertions that the orders were illegally made by a corrupt court that had denied Article 6 rights, and that the court had failed to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The judge rejected those defences, described the recordings as "unsettling and troubling" and as showing the Appellant manipulating the Protected Party and provoking distress, and concluded that the injunctions had been breached and that the breaches were contempt.

On sentence the judge noted the Appellant's lack of representation at that hearing and her awareness of entitlement to legal representation (she had been legally represented in the previous committal proceedings). The judge adopted the principles summarised by Judge MacDonald in Re Dahlia Griffith [2020] EWCOP 46 (para. 42). He found the Appellant lacked means to pay a fine, that the circumstances were serious (committed during a period of suspension), that she had known the postings would be a contempt, and that she showed no intention to remove them. He concluded that imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence, that suspension was inappropriate, and passed three months' imprisonment (to run concurrently for the September 2023 breaches) and activated the earlier suspended 28-day sentence to run consecutive to the three months.

The Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 21 March 2024; the appeal's listing was delayed in part by difficulties obtaining legal aid. In late 2024 the Appellant's legal team raised capacity concerns; the Appellant declined a face-to-face assessment and a paper psychiatric assessment suggested possible delusional disorder affecting capacity under s.3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. On preliminary consideration by the Court of Appeal (Judges King, Asplin and Birss) the Court concluded there was reason to believe the Appellant lacked capacity and made an interim declaration, referring the final capacity question to a Tier 3 judge in the Court of Protection and appointing the Official Solicitor as litigation friend; the stay of committal pending appeal was extended and the injunctions remained in force (reasons in [2024] EWCA Civ 1579).

Subsequently, Judge Theis (Vice-President of the Court of Protection) determined in a hearing in April 2025 (judgment delivered 22 May 2025, reported at [2025] EWCOP 18) that the Appellant had capacity to conduct the contempt proceedings on 22 January 2024 and to conduct this appeal. Following that determination, directions were given by Judge King (inter alia) discharging the Official Solicitor as litigation friend, maintaining the injunctive orders, listing the appeal and directing the parties' filings.

Pleadings and skeleton arguments were filed; on 13 August the Appellant sought permission to amend grounds of appeal and to rely on fresh evidence (a statement from a proposed witness). The Local Authority opposed the fresh evidence; the Court indicated it would permit amendment so that the litigant in person could present her case but refused to admit the proposed witness statement as it did not assist the issues before the Court.

The hearing addressed three specific issues identified by the Court: (1) whether the Appellant had acted in contempt of court; (2) whether the proceedings before Judge Poole on 22 January 2024 were fair; and (3) whether the punishment imposed was fair and proportionate. By the judgment under summary, the appeal was dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Had the Appellant acted in contempt of court by breaching the injunctive orders restraining publication and recording relating to the Protected Party?
2. Were the committal proceedings before Judge Poole on 22 January 2024 conducted fairly (Article 6 ECHR issues, representation and procedural safeguards)?
3. Was the sentence imposed for contempt (imprisonment with activation of a previous suspended sentence) fair and proportionate in all the circumstances?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant maintained that the Protected Party did not lack capacity and that the Court of Protection proceedings and subsequent orders were unlawful; consequently she was not obliged to comply with the injunctions and was not in contempt.
• She relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 8 (right to family life), arguing that the injunctions and committal orders disproportionately restricted her ability to publicise concerns about the Protected Party's treatment and to campaign for redress. She asserted no proportionality assessment under Article 10(2) had been carried out.
• She asserted procedural unfairness under Article 6: that she had been unrepresented at the committal hearing on 22 January 2024 despite documented efforts to secure representation, that essential documents (including an expedited transcript) were not provided in time, and that the hearing therefore denied her a meaningful defence.
• She alleged systemic failings by professionals, judicial and expert bias, misuse of capacity law, failure to follow Court of Protection rules and disclosure obligations, and that the injunctions had the effect of unlawfully depriving the Protected Party of liberty and were ultra vires of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• She submitted the recordings were pixelated and did not identify the Protected Party and that there was no evidence they had caused harm; she said publication was the only practical step to protect the Protected Party because other complaint avenues had failed.
• She filed amended grounds that elaborated seven specific grounds of appeal (unfair trial; breach of Articles 8 and 10; procedural irregularities; judicial/expert bias and misuse of capacity law; unlawful deprivation of liberty and failure to follow best interests; denial of appeal rights due to a missing transcript; and arbitrary/disproportionate injunctions). These are summarised in the paragraphs above and were advanced to the Court.

Local Authority's Arguments

• The Local Authority alleged repeated, deliberate breaches of the injunctive orders: posting videos of the Appellant speaking to the Protected Party, posting links to videos and to court documents, and thereby publishing material that identified the Protected Party and professionals involved in her care.
• The Local Authority submitted that the posts were contemptuous, that the judge had correctly found the posts harmful to the Protected Party (including evidence of manipulation), and that imprisonment was an appropriate response in the face of deliberate, repeated breaches during a period of suspension.
• The Local Authority opposed admission of the Appellant's proposed fresh evidence on the basis it did not assist the issues before the Court; its counsel (referred to in the papers) opposed the late amendment to evidence and submissions that would prolong or prejudice the appeal process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
[2023] EWCOP 3	Judgment of Judge Poole on sentence in earlier committal proceedings (finding of deliberate breaches and harm to the Protected Party).	The appellate court summarised and relied on the facts and reasoning in that sentencing judgment (deliberateness of breaches; harm demonstrated by recordings) as the factual background and as part of the sentencing history. The earlier suspension of sentence was material to the later decision to activate a custodial sentence.
[2023] EWCA Civ 574	Earlier Court of Appeal decision dismissing the Appellant's prior appeal against sentence/finding.	Used as procedural history: the Appellant's earlier appeal against the January 2023 outcome had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 4 May 2023.
Re Dahlia Griffith [2020] EWCOP 46	Sentencing principles in committal proceedings; the judge adopted principles summarised by Judge MacDonald at para. 42 of that decision.	Judge Poole applied those principles in deciding that imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence; the appellate court endorsed reliance on those principles when assessing proportionality and the decision to impose immediate custody.
[2024] EWCA Civ 1579	This Court's interim decision on the Appellant's capacity: reason to believe the Appellant lacked capacity and interim declaration; referral to a Tier 3 judge; appointment of the Official Solicitor as litigation friend.	The judgment provided the procedural route taken when capacity concerns arose, and the appellate record refers to that interim declaration and referral. The Court of Appeal's directions flowed from that interim decision.
[2024] EWCOP 8	Referenced by the Appellant as containing an order (para. 48) for an expedited transcript to be provided to her.	The Appellant relied on the asserted failure to provide the transcript as denying her appeal rights. The appellate court recorded the allegation and rejected it as undermining the fairness of the committal hearing.
[2025] EWCOP 18	Decision of Judge Theis determining the Appellant had capacity to conduct the contempt proceedings and to conduct the appeal.	The appellate record noted this final determination on capacity; in light of that finding the Court of Appeal proceeded with the appeal and stated it was unnecessary to say more about the capacity issue in the present judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning addressed the three defined issues in turn. The analysis below follows the structure and content of the judgment and does not add factual material beyond the recorded reasons.

1. Whether the Appellant acted in contempt of court

The Court emphasised the central legal and factual point: the Appellant knowingly and deliberately breached an order of the court. The Appellant's profound disagreement with the injunctions did not provide lawful justification to disobey them. The Court stated directly (in the judge's words) that "she was obliged to comply with the orders and deliberately chose not to do so."

The Court accepted the judge's factual findings that the Appellant had uploaded and reposted material that identified the Protected Party and professionals and that, cumulatively, the posts pointed to the Protected Party as the subject of the Court of Protection proceedings. Four of the alleged breaches involved reposting material previously found to be in contempt. The Appellant admitted acting as alleged but denied legal liability on various grounds; the judge rejected those defences.

2. Relevance of the content of the recordings

The Court explained that the substantive content of the recordings was irrelevant to the legal question of culpability for contempt: the order prohibited making recordings of the Protected Party and uploading them, and the Appellant flagrantly broke that order. The Court endorsed the judge's view (set out in his sentencing judgment) that the recordings were "unsettling and troubling" and evidenced manipulative conduct which harmed the Protected Party's mental health.

3. Article 6 fairness (representation and procedure)

The Appellant argued the committal hearing on 22 January 2024 was unfair because she was unrepresented. The Court examined the judge's contemporaneous reasoning: the Appellant had been informed of her entitlement to legal representation, had been legally represented in earlier committal proceedings, and did not seek an adjournment at that hearing despite being prepared to argue her case. The judge considered whether to adjourn for representation and reasonably concluded that, given the Appellant's location (France) and the practical prospects for securing representation in time, an adjournment was unlikely to be effective. On that basis the Court concluded there was no unfairness sufficient to overturn the finding of contempt.

4. Articles 8 and 10 ECHR (privacy and expression)

The Appellant relied on Article 10 (and Article 8) to justify publication. The Court rejected those claims on the simple basis that the injunctions lawfully prohibited publication in order to protect the Protected Party and that the Appellant deliberately defied a valid court order. The Court recorded that prior authorities permitting publication in other family or COP cases did not assist this Appellant because the present injunctions had been properly made and were binding.

5. Sentencing and proportionality

The Court reviewed the sentencing exercise and endorsed the approach of Judge Poole, who had adopted the sentencing principles summarised in Re Dahlia Griffith [2020] EWCOP 46. The judge had considered aggravating and mitigating factors: the Appellant had no means to pay a fine; the contempts occurred while an earlier custodial sentence was suspended; the conduct was deliberate and showed no intention to comply; the publications were capable of harming the Protected Party. The judge concluded only immediate imprisonment would meet the seriousness of the contempt and that suspension was not appropriate in the present circumstances.

The appellate court agreed that a principal purpose of contempt sanctions is to uphold the authority of the court and to deter flagrant breaches. Given the repeated and intentional flouting of court orders and the activation of a prior suspended sentence, the Court concluded the sentence of three months' imprisonment (with the earlier suspended 28-day sentence made immediate to run consecutively) was proportionate.

6. Other procedural matters (amendment and fresh evidence)

The Court addressed the Appellant's application to amend her grounds and to adduce fresh evidence. In order to facilitate a litigant in person the Court was minded to allow the Appellant to amend her grounds; it concluded the proposed amendments were not materially different from arguments she had repeatedly made and would not cause prejudice to the Local Authority. However, the Court ruled that the proposed statement from the named witness did not assist the issues before it and refused to admit it. The Appellant accepted that another clinician's document was not relevant.

7. Capacity issue

The factual sequence about capacity was: the Appellant's own legal team raised concerns about capacity in late 2024; a paper psychiatric assessment suggested possible delusional disorder and lack of capacity; the Court of Appeal made an interim declaration of lack of capacity and referred the issue to the High Court with the Official Solicitor appointed as litigation friend ([2024] EWCA Civ 1579). Subsequently Judge Theis determined the Appellant did have capacity to conduct the contempt proceedings and this appeal ([2025] EWCOP 18). In light of that final determination, the Court of Appeal proceeded to determine the appeal on the merits and stated it was unnecessary to say more about capacity in the present judgment.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal. Concretely, the Court upheld the finding of contempt and the sentences imposed by Judge Poole: three months' imprisonment for the September 2023 breaches (to run concurrently for those breaches) and activation of the earlier 28-day suspended sentence to run consecutively to that three-month custodial term. The injunctive orders remained in force during the appellate process and were treated throughout as valid and enforceable.

Implications:

• Direct effect: the Appellant's conviction for contempt and the custodial sentence as imposed and explained by Judge Poole were upheld.
• The Court endorsed the sentencing approach that deliberate, repeated breaches of court orders designed to protect a vulnerable person (including during a period of suspension) will generally attract immediate custody where lesser sanctions are inadequate to uphold the court's authority and to deter further non-compliance.
• The Court did not announce or establish new legal principle beyond applying existing authority (including the principles summarised in Re Dahlia Griffith) to the facts of this case; the resolution turned on findings of fact about deliberate non‑compliance and the proportionality of the custodial response.

This summary is strictly anonymised and limited to the information contained in the provided opinion. It does not introduce facts or inferences that are not present in the source text.

Judgment delivered by Judge Baker; Judge Birss and Judge Asplin agreed.