Committal for sentence meaning

Counsel for Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, argued that his client is held in segregation for his own protection, a regime said to have prompted a ‘deterioration’ in his health. Alisdair Williamson KC of Three Raymond Buildings said that, while authorities are keeping him safe by isolating him, that very safeguard is making him progressively more unwell than the sentencing judge anticipated. In October, Judge Jeremy Johnson imposed an 18 month prison term for breaching a court order that forbade him from repeating false claims about a Syrian schoolboy refugee who had already won a libel action. Jamal Hijazi, aged 15 at the time, had sued over allegations of violence, assertions Yaxley-Lennon maintained at trial were true. After a 2021 trial, High Court Judge Matthew Nicklin found the allegations were false. He ordered Yaxley-Lennon not to repeat them and to pay Hijazi £100,000 in damages plus the schoolboy’s legal costs. Yaxley-Lennon, 42, went on to breach the order between February 2023 and July 2024 by reiterating the claims...

The High Court found that Kevin-gerald Stanford, previously Kevin Gerald Stanford, had persisted in asserting that the share sale agreement for a fashion label was void on the basis of fraudulent inducement, thereby breaching a court order. The finding concerned his insistence that he had been fraudulently induced to sign it. HHJ Paul Matthews stated he was satisfied, to the criminal standard of proof, that Mr Stanford violated the order by reviving the fraud allegations in a January letter and in a later paper sent to a division of private equity house Lion Capital. He explained that these amounted to clear statements that, due to the alleged fraud, the bank never acquired good title to the respondent’s shares and that they therefore still belong to him. Yet those same shares were subsequently sold by the bank to the applicant, meaning the respondent is indirectly asserting a beneficial interest in them, contrary to the injunction’s terms. In the judge’s view, those claims sought to preserve a supposed ownership interest despite the...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. This Practice Note is retained solely for historical reference as it relates to CPR 81 as it stood before 1 October 2020, and to Practice Direction 81, which was revoked in full with effect from 1 October 2020. If you are handling a committal application after 1 October 2020, you must consult the CPR 81 currently in force and the Practice Notes addressing it; see: Contempt and committal—overview. For the pre-1 October 2020 version of CPR 81 or Practice Direction 81, see: This Practice Note considers the aims and principles of sentencing in contempt and writ of sequestration matters following a successful committal application. It does not attempt to provide a sentencing guide on the suitability or otherwise of sentence length in any particular circumstances. In line with Longhurst v Killen, the duration of any sentence will always turn on a broad range of factors and, naturally, the character of the contempt itself. Committal...

ARCHIVED : This archived Practice Note compiles major dispute resolution (DR) appeals and notable appellate rulings in general civil litigation in England and Wales from 2024 to date. It also highlights key forthcoming appeal matters (to support horizon scanning) together with reported judgments delivered in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Privy Council), Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Links are provided to the judgment and any bespoke News Analysis to aid understanding of the principles engaged and the impact of the decisions. It is not maintained and is offered for background use only. For details of key DR appeals from 2025 to date, see Practice Note: Dispute resolution: key appeal cases—2025 [Archived]. This Practice Note has two parts intended to help dispute resolution practitioners remain informed about developments in case law affecting their practice, or civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming...