Sentencing decision
Sentencing decision
And so, finally, I turn to the question of sentence. I bear in mind, at the outset, that I am sentencing not just for the particular conduct the subject of the contempts, but also for conduct which breaches the order of the court. It is not the offence in itself, so much as the offence against the administration of justice, which is important here. Punishment for these contempts holds out the threat of further punishment for future breaches. By way of penalty, the Court can impose an unlimited fine, or sequestrate assets, or it can impose a maximum prison sentence of two years: Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 14. In considering the appropriate sentence, I have taken into account all the written submissions made to the court by the respondent. I record here that leading counsel for the contempt applicant was meticulous, both in his written and his oral arguments, in drawing my attention to anything that might assist the respondent.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The respondent’s further applications
- Dealing with the applications
- The application of 13 August 2025
- The application of 4 September 2025
- Sentencing in the absence of the respondent
- The respondent’s further application
- The position of the applicant in the contempt application
- Discussion
- Conclusion on the application
- Sentencing decision
- The respondent’s position
- The mental element in contempt
- Purging contempt
- Starting point
- Aggravation and mitigation
- Decision in principle
- Fine?
- Suspended sentence?
- Conclusions
![BL-2021-002235 - [2025] EWHC 2367 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)