Wye Valley NHS Trust v Sean Murphy
[2024] EWHC 1912 (KB)
Darrell Robinson v Michael Murphy
12 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 798 (KB)
High Court
A solicitor was accused of lying in court documents about a car accident. The accuser had strong evidence suggesting the solicitor knew he was lying but couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because of the unreliability of witness testimony and the solicitor's possible intoxication at the time of the accident. The judge ruled that there wasn't enough proof to convict the solicitor of contempt of court.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Murphy applied to commit Mr. Robinson for contempt of court for making false statements in documents verified by a statement of truth.
- •The false statements concerned the number of occupants in a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident and whether Mr. Gibson was present.
- •Mr. Robinson was a senior partner in a law firm specializing in low-value personal injury claims.
- •Dashcam footage contradicted Mr. Robinson's statements about the accident.
- •Several witnesses who provided affidavits supporting Mr. Robinson did not attend for cross-examination.
Legal Principles
Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
CPR 32.14
It is a contempt of court to engage in any conduct that involves interference with the due administration of justice.
AG v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440
Allegations in contempt proceedings must be proved to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWCA Civ 1411
Circumstantial evidence can be relied upon in contempt proceedings, but it must be carefully scrutinized.
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWHC 237 (Comm)
Courts should generally proceed on the basis of an inherent improbability of a professional person acting dishonestly.
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England [2001] UKHL 16
Limited weight should be placed on witnesses' recollections, especially when based on memory after a significant passage of time.
Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse Limited [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
Adverse inferences can be drawn from a witness's non-attendance for cross-examination, but the weight given depends on the circumstances.
Discovery Land Company LLC v Jirehouse [2019] EWHC 1633 (Ch)
Outcomes
The application to commit Mr. Robinson for contempt of court was dismissed.
The court found that Mr. Murphy had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Robinson knew his statements were false. The court considered alternative, reasonably credible explanations for Mr. Robinson's actions, taking into account his level of intoxication, the passage of time, and the unreliability of memory.