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.