John Bruce v Wychavon District Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 1389
Edward Ellis v His Majesty’s Solicitor General
3 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 585
Court of Appeal
A man repeatedly broke a court order by filing fake lawsuits, claiming the courts were corrupt. The court sent him to jail for a year and said he was wrong. He appealed but lost because his reasons were crazy and didn't make sense.
Key Facts
- •Edward Ellis, an ex-solicitor, was found in contempt of court by Kerr J and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment (6 months for two new contempts + 6 months from a previous suspended sentence).
- •Ellis has a history of issuing spurious applications and claims on behalf of others, believing the justice system is corrupt.
- •He is subject to a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) since 2018, prohibiting him from issuing claims without permission.
- •The new contempts involved applications made on behalf of Haztunc and Sood, containing language explicitly prohibited by the GCRO.
- •Ellis denied authorship but did not provide evidence to the contrary.
- •Ellis appealed, raising numerous unsubstantiated claims of widespread judicial fraud and conspiracy.
- •Ellis' appeal was incomprehensible and failed to address the judge's findings.
Legal Principles
An appeal to the Court of Appeal is a review, not a rehearing.
Court of Appeal Practice
In criminal contempt, the prosecution must prove the contemnor knew the terms of the order and acted intentionally to breach it; intent to interfere with justice can be inferred.
Solicitor General v Cox [2016] 2 Cr.App.R 15; Attorney General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103; Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791
The seriousness threshold for criminal contempt must be met; factors include effect on administration of justice and harm to other litigants.
Director of Serious Fraud Office v O’Brien [2014] AC 1246
Sentencing in contempt cases is a matter of judicial discretion, considering culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, and whether a fine or custody is appropriate; suspension of sentence depends on factors such as risk to public and prospect of rehabilitation.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Co. Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392; Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103
The court has jurisdiction to deal with contempt applications and impose imprisonment.
Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.13
Activation of a suspended sentence: Statutory presumption in favour of activation does not apply in contempt cases, but the court considers sentencing guidelines.
Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 16, paragraphs 13 and 14; Sentencing Council’s Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the judge's findings of fact and the sentence to be justified. Ellis's appeal was based on unsubstantiated allegations and failed to address the substance of the case.
12-month imprisonment upheld.
The Court upheld the 6-month sentence for the two new contempts and the 6-month activation of the previous suspended sentence, finding the sentence appropriate given Ellis's culpability, the harm caused, and lack of remorse.
Similar Cases
Mark Gary Coates v Janice Elizabeth Turner & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1487
Adam (formerly known as Michael Merrill) v Cheshire East Council
[2024] EWCA Civ 536
His Majesty's Solicitor General v Paul Millinder
[2022] EWHC 2832 (Admin)
Elliott Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor
[2022] EWCA Civ 1519