Closes 8 Nov 2024
This service needs cookies enabled.
We provisionally propose that the two-year maximum sentence for contempt of court should remain.
Do consultees agree?
The Debtors Act 1869 limits to six weeks the period of committal that can be imposed for contempt of court where there is a failure to comply with a family court or High Court maintenance order.
Should this limit remain or should the maximum period of committal be the same as that for other forms of contempt (and thus two years)?
Should committal remain an option where contempt is committed by publication when proceedings are active?
We provisionally propose that a regime for suspended sentences for contempt should be set out in statute.
If a regime for suspended sentences for contempt were to be set out in statute, what should be the minimum and maximum period of suspension (that is, the period for which a person must comply with conditions)?
If a regime for suspended sentences were to be set out in statute, what should be the conditions that may be imposed where a sentence is suspended?
What other features should a statutory regime contain?
We provisionally propose that when a committal order (or a community sentence should that option be available) is being contemplated as a contempt sanction, the court should be required to order a pre-sentence report unless the court considers it to be unnecessary in the circumstances.
We provisionally propose that where a committal order is being contemplated as a contempt sanction and the contemnor is or appears to be suffering from a mental disorder, before that order is made:
(1) the court should be required to obtain and consider a medical report unless, in the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is unnecessary to obtain a medical report; and
(2) the court should be required to consider any information before it which relates to the contemnor’s mental condition (whether given in a medical report, a pre-sentence report or otherwise), and the likely effect of committal on that condition and on any treatment which may be available for it.
We provisionally propose that courts should have the power to remand a contemnor in custody after a finding of contempt but before sentencing only where an order of immediate committal is highly likely.
We provisionally propose that where time has been spent on remand in custody then:
(1) the time spent in custody should be considered in determining what sanction is appropriate in all the circumstances; and
(2) if a term of committal is imposed, then double the time spent in custody should be automatically deducted from the period of committal that is ordered.
We provisionally propose that contemnors who have been committed to prison for 12 weeks or more should be eligible for early release on electronically monitored Home Detention Curfew up to 180 days before their automatic early release date. Consistently with the criminal regime, contemnors would need to have served at least 28 days of their sentence (14 of which must be served after the sentence is handed down).
We provisionally propose that, in deciding whether to discharge a committal order on application by the contemnor, courts should consider the following factors:
(1) whether the contemnor has suffered punishment proportionate to the contempt;
(2) whether the interest of the state to uphold the rule of law would be significantly prejudiced by early discharge;
(3) the extent to which the contemnor’s expression of contrition is genuine;
(4) whether the contemnor has done all they reasonably can to demonstrate a resolve and an ability not to commit a further breach if discharged early;
(5) whether the contemnor has done all they reasonably can (bearing in mind the difficulties of doing so while in prison) in order to construct proposed living and other practical arrangements in the event of early discharge in such a way as to minimise the risk of committing a further breach;
(6) whether the contemnor has made any specific proposal to augment the protection against any further breach of those whom the order which they breached was designed to protect;
(7) the length of time already served in prison, including its relation to (a) the full term imposed and (b) the term which the contemnor would otherwise be required to serve prior to release; and
(8) any other factors the court thinks relevant.
Do consultees have evidence about whether there is a gap in the protection of contempt prisoners who lack capacity or who have capacity but are otherwise vulnerable?
Keeping in mind our provisional proposals to introduce pre-sentence reports, how might such a gap in protection be addressed?
We provisionally propose that there should remain no maximum limit on the fines open to superior courts in contempt cases.
We provisionally propose that the superior courts should have the power to suspend a fine in contempt cases.
Do consultees agree with our understanding of how sequestration functions?
Do consultees have evidence of how sequestration is used in contempt cases and whether it is effective as a coercive and/or punitive sanction?
Should there be any clarification of or reform to sequestration as it applies in contempt proceedings?
We provisionally propose that community sentences should be available as a sanction for contempt of court.
With respect to children and young people, are there aspects of the law regarding sanctions for contempt that are satisfactory or unsatisfactory? We welcome evidence of the way the law has operated.
Where the law of contempt as it relates to children and young people is unsatisfactory, what changes should be made? We welcome evidence of the way that the law has operated.
Do the superior courts have appropriate powers with respect to mental health orders in the context of contempt?
We provisionally propose that the county court should be treated as a superior court for the purpose of imposing sanctions for contempt.
Are there any circumstances in which consultees think the county court should not be treated as a superior court for the purpose of imposing sanctions for contempt?
We provisionally propose that with the exception of the county court, all protected inferior courts, tribunals and other bodies should have the following powers in relation to contempt:
(1) the power to order committal for up to one month (immediate or suspended); and
(2) the power to impose a fine of up to £2,500.
Do consultees consider that any protected inferior courts, tribunals and other bodies should be treated differently? If so, why?
We provisionally propose that the First-tier Tribunal for Wales (if created) should have the following powers:
Do consultees consider that any specific chambers of the First-tier Tribunal for Wales should be treated differently? If so, why?
We provisionally propose that the Appeal Tribunal for Wales (if created) should have the contempt powers of a superior court of record.
We provisionally propose that a working group nominated by the senior judiciary should be established to prepare guidelines for sentencing for contempt.
We provisionally propose that a finding of contempt and any associated sanction should never be entered into the Police National Computer.
We provisionally propose that a finding of contempt and any associated sanction should never appear on a criminal record certificate.
We provisionally propose that there should be annual publication of data in relation to contemnors received into prison, including for each contemnor the court that sentenced them, the number of days expected to be served before their automatic release date, and number of days actually served in prison.
Should data be recorded when contempt proceedings are instituted? If so, what data?
Should such recorded data be published in anonymised and disaggregated form?
Are there any issues in relation to sanctions for contempt of court that have not already been addressed?
We would particularly welcome views and evidence in relation to:
