Lioubov Macpherson v Sunderland City Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 574
Sunderland City Council v Lioubov MacPherson
22 January 2024
[2024] EWCOP 8
Court of Protection
A mother repeatedly broke court orders protecting her daughter's privacy and mental health. Despite warnings and a previous suspended sentence, she posted videos and information online about her daughter and the court case. The judge sent her to prison for three months, plus activating her previous suspended sentence.
Key Facts
- •Ms. MacPherson was found in contempt of court for breaching injunctions protecting her daughter, FP, a protected person with paranoid schizophrenia.
- •The injunctions prohibited recording FP or staff, publicizing proceedings, and posting online about the case.
- •Ms. MacPherson, despite warnings and a prior suspended sentence, repeatedly re-posted videos and information online identifying FP and violating the injunctions.
- •Ms. MacPherson resides in France and did not attend court hearings, participating remotely.
- •The court considered Ms. MacPherson's arguments regarding Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 (fair trial) rights, as well as the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
- •The court found the injunctions lawful and the breaches to be clear contempts of court.
Legal Principles
Standard of proof in contempt of court cases is beyond reasonable doubt.
Case law implicitly shown in the Judgement
The Court of Protection must act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Article 10 (freedom of expression) allows for expressing opinions but not in a manner that breaches court orders.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10
Article 6 (right to a fair trial) must be observed in court proceedings.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6
Sentencing for contempt of court must be proportionate, upholding court authority and deterring future breaches.
Re Dahlia Griffith [2020] EWCOP 46; Patel v Patel [2017] EWHC 3229 (Ch)
Outcomes
Ms. MacPherson found guilty of contempt of court for breaching injunctions.
Repeated and deliberate breaches of injunctions, despite warnings and a prior suspended sentence, intended to defy court authority.
Sentence of three months' imprisonment for the September 2023 breaches, consecutive to the previous 28-day suspended sentence (now activated).
Seriousness of the contempt, lack of remorse, and no prospect of compliance without imprisonment. Financial penalties were deemed inappropriate due to Ms. MacPherson's lack of means.