Mark Gary Coates v Janice Elizabeth Turner & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1487
Mark Cooper v Ignite International Brands (UK) Limited & Ors
12 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 807
Court of Appeal
A man was jailed for 9 months for ignoring court orders twice. He didn't return goods he was ordered to, and he didn't give information about missing, expensive items. Even though he has mental health problems and family responsibilities, the judge said his actions were too serious, and the appeals court agreed.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Mark Cooper was sentenced to 9 months immediate imprisonment for two counts of contempt of court.
- •The contempt involved non-compliance with a delivery-up order and a freezing order.
- •Significant discrepancies were found between the physical stock and Ignite's inventory reports, leading to allegations of fraud exceeding £2m.
- •Mr. Cooper failed to deliver up stock or provide adequate information regarding its whereabouts.
- •Mr. Cooper also failed to provide an affidavit of assets as ordered by the court.
- •Mr. Cooper's mitigation included poor mental health, childcare responsibilities, and the impact of imprisonment on his family.
- •Ignite was granted default judgment against Mr. Cooper and Inpero for £3,520,121.65.
Legal Principles
General principles of sentencing in contempt cases.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan and Others [2019] EWCA Civ 392
Factors to consider when assessing the seriousness of contempt (Crystal Mews test).
Crystal Mews Limited v Metterick & Ors [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
Breaches of freezing orders are serious contempts, often warranting immediate imprisonment.
Templeton Insurance v Thomas [2023] EWCA Civ 35 & Asia Islamic Trade Financing Fund Ltd v Drum Risk Management Ltd [2015] EWHC 3748 (Com)
Circumstances may warrant suspending a custodial sentence in contempt cases, considering factors such as prejudice, pressure, culpability, and impact on others.
Templeton Insurance v Thomas [2023] EWCA Civ 35, Liverpool Victoria v Khan, Sentencing Council’s guideline
Appellate court will only interfere with contempt sentencing if there's an error of principle, immaterial factors considered/material factors ignored, or the decision was plainly wrong.
Financial Conduct Authority v McKendrick [2019] EWCA Civ 524
The decision to suspend a sentence is a matter of judgment, and appellate courts will not lightly interfere.
R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge adequately considered Mr. Cooper's mitigation but determined that the seriousness of the contempts warranted immediate custody. Suspension was deemed inappropriate due to the severity of the breaches and lack of prospect for rehabilitation.
Mr. Cooper ordered to pay £4,000 in costs.
No costs schedule was provided, but after deliberation the court awarded costs to Ignite