Sunderland City Council v Macpherson [2023] EWCOP 3

Contempt of court hearing arising from the defendant’s breaches of orders relating to contact with her daughter, FP, who is living in a placement having been diagnosed with schizophrenia, a diagnosis the mother does not agree with. The judgment also deals with press reporting of the proceedings.

The background to the case is set out in a previous judgment SCC v FP and others [2022] EWCOP 30. As a result of that hearing, Poole J extended various orders prohibiting the mother from recording FP and posting that content on social media. This application related to five alleged breaches of those orders, which were admitted by the defendant

Poole J reviews the range of sentencing options available to him in the circumstances noting at [58] 

“the Defendant has almost dared the court to send her to prison because she believes it will bring attention to her bizarre views. However, to imprison the Defendant could well cause harm to others, both to the Defendant's husband, FP's stepfather, who has health issues and is aged 74 and who is looked after at home by the Defendant, and to FP herself.”

While he concludes that imprisonment is the only appropriate course of action, the mitigating circumstances, including that the offending posts had been removed, allowed him to suspend the sentence of 28 days for 12 months. On the other issue addressed here, that of transparency, Poole J concedes that the Defendant can now be named given these are committal proceedings. He also states at [41] it would be “artificial” for commentators to be able to name the Defendant when commenting on the committal proceedings but not to be permitted to name her when commenting on the substantive Court of Protection proceedings and so amends the Transparency Order accordingly.

Read the judgment on Bailii