Immediate custodial sentence for contempt in the Court of Protection

In KL v Manchester City Council [2024] EWCOP 43 and 54, District Judge Matharu, sitting as a judge of the Court of Protection, found Mr Adamou in contempt of court by failing to vacate a property belonging to “KL” (P in the substantive proceedings). Mr Adamou was ordered to vacate the property so that KL could return home from her residential placement.

Despite engaging with proceedings earlier, Mr Adamou did not attend either the committal hearing or the sentencing hearing. Having considered the guidance in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam) DJ Matharu proceeded in his absence.

DJ Matharu considered and applied the sentencing guidance in Lovett [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. She also considered the case of Macpherson [2023] EWCOP 3.

In view of the seriousness of the contempt, its deliberate nature, Mr Adamou’s wider conduct in the proceedings, the impact on KL and the impact on professionals, District Judge Matharu concluded that a custodial sentence was appropriate.

The judge noted that Mr Adamou had repeatedly said he had no intention of moving out of the property. She concluded that the only means of achieving the objective of compliance with court orders would be to pass an immediate custodial sentence. The judgement on the contempt can be found here. The judgement on sentencing can be found here.

Comment

This case demonstrated that the Court of Protection can and will use its full powers to enforce compliance with orders. It is notable that the judge took into account the impact on KL when considered sentence. This case is somewhat different to many contempt cases in the Court of Protection, because the Defendant remained in breach at the time of sentence, and was adamant that he would not comply. That is why, unusually, an immediate custodial sentence was passed.

Helen Gardiner and Richard Borrett were instructed for the local authority in the contempt proceedings.

Helen sits as a fee-paid judge in the Mental Health Tribunal and has a keen interest in cases involving the intersection of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. She has a busy COP welfare practice, acting on behalf of the Official Solicitor, ICBs, Trusts and Local Authorities.

Richard has substantial experience of injunctions and contempt in the Court of Protection, including the previously reported case of Lincolnshire County Council v X & Ors [2023] EWCOP 53, and cases where the Defendant’s capacity to understand the injunction and/or conduct the litigation is in issue.