Dahlia Griffith v P (by her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Peter Jackson,Lord Justice Coulson,Lady Justice Andrews |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWCA Civ 1675 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B4/2020/1805 |
| Date | 10 December 2020 |
[2020] EWCA Civ 1675
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PROTECTION
Mr Justice MacDonald
1344811T
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Peter Jackson
Lord Justice Coulson
and
Lady Justice Andrews
Case No: B4/2020/1805
The Appellant did not appear
Sarah Simcock (instructed by Mackintosh Law) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 10 December 2020
Approved Judgment
This is an appeal from an order committing Dahlia Griffith (‘the Appellant’) to prison for contempt of court.
The background is fully set out in the judgment of MacDonald J (‘the Judge’), which is to be found at [2020] EWCOP 46. The Appellant is a relative of P, a woman who is in a specialist hospital with a permanent disorder of consciousness. There were proceedings in the Court of Protection concerning P's best interests. In those proceedings P was represented by the Official Solicitor, who instructed Mackintosh Law as her solicitor. The proceedings came to an end in April 2020.
During the course of the proceedings, an issue arose about the disclosure of P's medical records. On 10 July 2019, the court made three third party orders for the disclosure of recent medical records to Macintosh Law and on 12 August 2019 a further order addressed to a fourth organisation. On 26 July 2019, the Appellant applied for disclosure to her of P's “full medical file”. That application was unsuccessful. On 13 August 2019, the court made no order on it because of the disclosure orders that had already been made. The Appellant made a further application for the same disclosure on 21 August 2019. This was refused the following day.
On 18 October 2019, the Appellant send an email to Barts Health NHS Trust attaching what purported to be a court order made on 10 July 2019 and providing for the disclosure of P's medical records directly to the Appellant. By this stage she was represented by solicitors. Acting in good faith, Barts Health NHS Trust sent P's medical records to the solicitors. They did not read them or show them to their client.
The Official Solicitor became aware of what had taken place in November 2019 when, pursuant to further orders, she approached Barts Health NHS Trust for copies of P's medical records, only to be told that they had already been provided at the Appellant's request.
On 25 February 2020, the Judge granted permission for an application for committal to be issued by the Official Solicitor under Rule 21.15 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017. That was the last hearing attended by the Appellant.
The hearing of the committal summons was listed before the Judge on 1 September 2020. The Appellant, who was represented by a solicitor, Mr Adam Tear of Scott-Moncrieff and Associates, failed to attend the hearing, stating that she was too ill. The hearing was adjourned to 29 September to allow her to provide medical evidence, but she failed to do so and did not attend at court on that occasion either. Mr Tear appeared on her behalf. He informed the court that she was exercising her right of silence. He submitted that the circumstances did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had falsified a court order. She denied doing so and contended that it had been drafted by another, unidentified person, and she simply sent it to Barts Health NHS Trust in good faith. Mr Tear submitted that there were features of the case to suggest that the Appellant believed in all innocence that she was entitled to the disclosure sought by the purported order.
The Judge directed himself carefully as to the law and procedure surrounding committal for contempt of court, including the helpful summary of the principles concerning committal in the absence of a respondent that is found in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam) (Cobb J). He found the allegation against the Appellant to have been proved: paragraph 36 of the judgment. He adjourned sentencing for two days to give her a further opportunity to attend court. She did not do so, and on 2 October 2020, the hearing resumed in her absence. She again claimed illness and Mr Tear applied for an adjournment, which was refused. The Judge directed himself as to the principles of sentencing. He took account of matters that had been advanced in mitigation: the Appellant's likely motivation in the context of fraught proceedings concerning a relative, the low level of harm caused to P by the forgery, the absence of any violence or personal gain, the heavier impact of imprisonment during the pandemic, and the Appellant's good character. Against this, the Judge noted the seriousness of interference with the administration of justice, the deliberate nature of the contempt, the absence of remorse or even any indication that the Appellant appreciated the gravity of her conduct....
To continue reading
Request your trial