Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal from orders of Judge Clarke in the Milton Keynes and Oxford County Court. The Appellant was found in contempt of court on seven counts (contempt order dated 16 April 2025) and was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment (sentencing order dated 25 June 2025). In an earlier judgment of this court ([2026] EWCA Civ 448) the court allowed the appeal against two counts (counts 6 and 7) and dismissed the appeal in respect of the remaining five counts, concluding that the sentencing exercise should be re-determined. The matter was listed for a further hearing before this court to determine the appropriate sentence.
Substantive background (as summarised in the opinion): in September 2022 the Appellant, together with another tenant, rented a property from the Respondent under an assured shorthold tenancy at a rent of £1,000 pcm. Rent went unpaid; possession proceedings were begun. The Appellant repeatedly and fraudulently exploited the "Breathing Space" debt-respite scheme by making false representations and, on at least one occasion, presenting forged documents, thereby delaying eviction and causing arrears to accumulate to over £23,000. The Appellant was evicted on 21 November 2023. Committal proceedings followed; the contempt findings and sentence were made in the Appellant's absence and later appealed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the custody threshold for contempt of court was crossed in respect of the proven contempts (i.e., whether immediate imprisonment was warranted).
- If the custody threshold was crossed, what is the least period of committal that properly reflects the seriousness of the contempts, having regard to culpability, harm and the totality principle.
- Whether any custodial sentence should be suspended, considering prospects of rehabilitation, personal mitigation and harmful impact to others.
- Procedural question whether the appellate court should remit sentencing to the original judge or determine sentence itself (previously decided to determine sentence with parties' agreement).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (summarised from the opinion)
- Conceded (through Attorney Jacobs) that the custody threshold was crossed but advanced mitigation to seek suspension or reduction of sentence: evidence of difficult childhood, PTSD and other mental health problems, commitment to engage in therapy, remorse and personal circumstances including responsibility for a seriously ill parent.
- Relied on a forensic psychiatric report (Dr Karim) describing personality traits, PTSD and moderate depression, and noting risk of deterioration in custody and a preference for community-based interventions.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Bruce v Wychavon District Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1389 |
Setting out sentencing principles for contempt: consider culpability (custody threshold), then the least period reflecting seriousness, then whether sentence should be suspended (factors per paragraph 72). |
The court applied the three-stage approach (culpability, minimum appropriate term, and consideration of suspension) and referenced the three suspension factors (realistic prospect of rehabilitation; strong personal mitigation; harmful impact to others). |
| Lovett v Wigan Borough Council (Re Breaches of ASBIs) [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 |
Application of custody threshold in civil contempt; reserve custody for most serious breaches; consideration of penalties per breach and the totality principle; adoption of CJC/Sentencing Council approach to culpability and harm. |
The court relied on Birss LJ's exposition to treat custody as reserved for the most serious breaches, to assess culpability and harm levels using the CJC grid, and to ensure the sentence was the shortest term achieving the purpose of committal. |
| Mavin v Wyatt [2026] EWCA Civ 448 |
Earlier appellate judgment in these proceedings which set out background, quashed two counts (6 and 7) for procedural irregularity and directed re-determination of sentence. |
This judgment formed the procedural and factual foundation for re-sentencing before the court and was relied on for the factual narrative and appellate disposition of counts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court applied established contempt sentencing principles. It first assessed culpability: the Appellant's actions were intentional, involved premeditation and sophistication (including forged documents), used multiple agencies, and were designed to frustrate lawful eviction. The court concluded culpability was high.
Second, the court assessed harm: the Respondent suffered significant prejudice—loss of enjoyment of the property, lost opportunity to relet or sell, prolonged proceedings and associated anxieties—constituting very serious harm to the respondent and to the administration of justice, and undermining the Breathing Space scheme.
Applying the Civil Justice Council/Sentencing Council approach, the court identified a starting point of 6 months for a single offence at the relevant culpability/harm level. The court concluded that 6 months was the shortest appropriate sentence for each of the five proved contempts, to be served concurrently, taking into account mitigation and the totality principle. The court then considered suspension factors: it had regard to a psychiatric report (Dr Karim) and the Appellant's mitigation, but found insufficient evidence of a realistic prospect of rehabilitation or strong personal mitigation and did not regard immediate custody as causing significant harmful impact to others sufficient to justify suspension. Accordingly, suspension was refused.
The court specified that the sentence should take effect immediately and noted that under section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 one half of the custodial term will be served in prison before automatic release.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART; SENTENCE REDUCED
Holding: The court confirmed that the appeal was allowed in part (counts 6 and 7 previously quashed remain quashed) and the remaining five counts stand. The court imposed a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment on each of the five proven counts, to be served concurrently, to take effect immediately. The court refused to suspend the sentence. One half of the custodial term will be served before automatic release under section 258 CJA 2003.
Implications: The direct consequence is immediate imprisonment of the Appellant on the specified terms and the recognition of significant prejudice to the Respondent. The opinion applies established sentencing principles to the facts and does not purport to create a new precedent beyond applying existing authorities and guidelines.