On 17 September 2024, “human wrecking ball”, Mr Coates, was committed to prison for 448 days for contempt of court. This was to be the second occasion on which Mr Coates had been committed to prison for breaches of injunctions made following the trial of a dispute with his neighbours in September 2022, before HHJ Venn. He successfully appealed the length of the first sentence (252 days): see Turner v Coates [2023] EWCA Civ 1487, Peter Jackson, Newey and Nugee LJJ).
This time around, Mr Coates appealed on two bases: (1) that it was unjust for the trial judge to determine the contempt application and sentence him before the outcome of criminal proceedings covering similar matters; and (2) that the trial judge ought to have sentenced concurrently, not consecutively.
Both grounds were dismissed in a judgment handed down on 25 June 2025.
Birss LJ (with whom Zacaroli LJ agreed) held that there is no general principle that it would be unjust for there to be parallel proceedings for civil contempt and criminal proceedings relating to the same allegations: see Barnet LBC v Hurst [2002] EWCA Civ 1009 and Lomas v Parle [2003] EWCA Civ 1804. The nature and purpose of civil and criminal proceedings differ, as do the objectives and the ranges of sentences available. The objectives in civil contempt (arising from the breach of a court order) are for prompt determination and to uphold the authority of the court. Further, the evidence in the criminal trial may be different from that in the civil trial (in which the ‘victims’ have far more control over the proceedings). It is therefore unlikely to be unjust for civil proceedings to be heard first.
In respect of the sentence itself, the Court of Appeal held that the general approach set out in Lovett v Wigan County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 (examination of the degree of culpability and harm associated with each breach relied on) was appropriate to apply by analogy, even though that case concerned anti-social behaviour injunctions. The trial judge had correctly identified the principle that concurrent sentences are usually appropriate for offences or incidents arising out of the same instances or facts, and that the lead sentence had to be just and proportionate overall for the level of criminality. Applying the totality principle, the trial judge had reduced the sentence from 546 to 448 days. A sentence of 64 weeks was well within the range of sentences the judge might have imposed in this case. Moreover, an appellate court is always reluctant to interfere with decisions on sentence in contempt of court proceedings given their multifactorial nature: see McKendrick v Financial Conduct Authority [2019] EWCA Civ 524.
A link to the judgment can be found here
The dispute has received significant press attention: e.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/10/britains-worst-neighbour-branded-human-wrecking-ball/
George Woodhead acted for the Respondents at this appeal, instructed through the Direct Access Scheme.
To lean more about George’s practice, please click here: https://www.selbornechambers.co.uk/barrister/george-woodhead/
