Lioubov Macpherson v Sunderland City Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 574
Robert Hood v The Department for Transport & Ors
3 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 760
Court of Appeal
A driving instructor was jailed for posting angry messages online about DVSA staff. He appealed, saying the staff member he targeted lied and the judge was unfair. The appeal court disagreed, saying he broke the rules, and his actions were his own fault. They also refused his request to be released from prison early.
Key Facts
- •Robert Hood, a former driving instructor, was committed to prison for 3 months for breaching an interim injunction.
- •The injunction prohibited Hood from posting content on social media that named, pictured, or identified DVSA employees, including their addresses.
- •Hood repeatedly breached the injunction by posting allegations of corruption and sharing personal information about DVSA employees.
- •Hood argued that the injunction was based on perjured evidence from Matthew Smith, a DVSA manager, and that the judges refused to investigate his claims.
- •Hood's appeal was dismissed.
- •Hood's application for a writ of habeas corpus was also refused.
Legal Principles
When applying for an interim injunction, the court does not make factual findings but assesses if a serious issue to be tried exists and if the balance of convenience favors the injunction.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
A witness's perjury does not automatically render previous court orders void. The accuracy of evidence is determined at trial.
This case
A judge has inherent jurisdiction to manage courtroom access to ensure proper proceedings, taking reasonable and proportionate steps.
This case
Voluntary non-attendance at a hearing does not violate Article 6 ECHR rights to a fair hearing.
This case
Outcomes
Appeal against committal order dismissed.
Hood's arguments regarding perjury were unfounded; the court did not have jurisdiction to pre-emptively investigate perjury claims; Hood's non-attendance at the hearing was voluntary; the injunction was clearly breached.
Application for writ of habeas corpus refused.
Hood was detained lawfully under a court order; the application was based on unsubstantiated claims; the proper route was to appeal the order, which Hood did.