Simon Oliver v Javed Shaikh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 08 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB) |
| Date | 08 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-000194 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2020] EWHC 2658 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: QB-2019-000194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ben Silverstone (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
Hearing date: 8 October 2020
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
On 24 August 2020, I handed down judgment finding the Defendant in contempt of Court for 20 breaches of the Order of Julian Knowles J dated 10 December 2019 ( [2020] EWHC 2253 (QB) (“the Liability Judgment”)). I will use the same definitions in this judgment as were used in the Liability Judgment.
I adjourned the issue of penalty for contempt of court to a hearing today. Mr Silverstone has appeared again to represent the Claimant. The Defendant has not attended, and nor has he been represented. Indeed, the Defendant has now disengaged with communicating with the Court and the Claimant's solicitors. The last communication from the Defendant was an email sent on 22 July 2020 (see [24] Liability Judgment).
Under the heading “Next Steps” in the Liability Judgment, I said this:
[103] As indicated above (see [43]), I intend now to fix a date for a further hearing at which the Court will consider the penalty to be imposed for the findings of contempt against the Defendant. A copy of this judgment, and consequent order, will be provided to the Defendant. Pursuant to CPR 23.11(2) and/or CPR 39.3(3), the Defendant has the opportunity to apply to the Court to ask for the Committal Application to be reconsidered and/or the order set aside. I will direct that any such application must be made within 14 days. The Defendant remains eligible for legal aid for the purposes of obtaining advice and representation.
[104] The Defendant should consider his position very carefully. The Court has found him to be in contempt of court. The continued publication of the JBB Website represents an ongoing defiance of the Court. If, by the time of the penalty hearing, the JBB Website (and other material the Defendant has been ordered to remove) has not been removed, that will be a serious aggravating factor.
The Order from the hearing on 24 August 2020 identified the 20 breaches of the Order of 10 December 2020 that I found proved to the criminal standard. The Order contained a prominent notice in the following terms:
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT
You did not attend the hearing on 27 July 2020, either in person or using the remote facility provided by the Court. The Court refused the Adjournment Application and proceeded to hear the Committal Application in your absence. The Court handed down judgment on 24 August 2020. As explained, and for the reasons set out in that judgment, you have been found to be in contempt of Court. At the hearing on 8 October 2020, the Court will decide what penalty should be imposed for your contempt. The Court has power to send you to prison, to fine you or seize your assets. You must attend court on 8 October 2020. If you fail to attend, without good reason, the Court may issue a warrant for your arrest and/or proceed in your absence.
Because the hearing on 27 July 2020 took place in your absence, pursuant to CPR 23.11(2) and/or CPR 39.3(3), you can ask the Court to reconsider the Committal Application and/or the Adjournment Application and/or to set aside or vary this Order. Paragraph 3 of this Order requires you to do so by 4pm on 7 September 2020.
The Injunction Order remains in force. If you continue to disobey it, you may be guilty of further contempt of Court.
LEGAL AID IS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE FACING COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS. YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK ADVICE FROM A SOLICITOR.
The Defendant has made no application to the Court to reconsider the Committal Application and/or the Adjournment Application or to vary or set aside the Order of 24 August 2020.
Events since 24 August 2020
The Claimant's solicitor, Ms Lloyd-Jones, has filed a further Affidavit setting out events since the last hearing.
On 29 September 2020, Ms Lloyd-Jones visited the URLs of each of the websites specified in paragraph 6 of the Order of 10 December 2019. Six of the websites were still available, one appears to have been removed. Importantly, the JBB Website is still online; indeed, as at 29 September 2020, 26 further entries had been posted since 24 August 2020. No evidence is available to the Court that would displace (or call for reconsideration of) the conclusion that the Defendant continues to control the JBB Website.
On 26 August 2020, the website Legal Futures published an article reporting the Liability Judgment (https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/former-trainee-doctor-in-contempt-for-online-campaign-against-judge) (“the Article”).
Shortly after the Article was published, at 13.01 on 26 August 2020, an individual purporting to be the Claimant sent an email from a Hotmail account asking Legal Futures to remove the Article on the claimed basis that it was affecting the Claimant's ability to do his job. The editor of Legal Futures queried the request by a reply email and then received a further email from the Hotmail account at 14.08:
“I work as a judge in the courts myself and i (sic) do not want the media circulating this judgement as it is having the public go back to the actual offending publication… It would be appreciative (sic) if the article can be taken down so i (sic) can continue working without having the offending. Material (sic) draw back to me.”
A further email was sent at 15.48 from the Hotmail account asking for clarification as to whether the Article would be removed.
Suspicious of the emails, Legal Futures quite properly forwarded them to the Judicial Office Press Office. Legal Futures also reported that they had received a telephone call, on the date the Article was published, from someone claiming to be the Claimant asking for the Article to be removed.
The evidence confirms that the Claimant did not make any contact with Legal Futures. In her Affidavit, Ms Lloyd-Jones states:
“The strong inference is that the Defendant made each of these communications. This arises from the facts that: (a) it was plainly in the Defendant's interests that the report of the Judgment should be removed from the Legal Futures website; (b) the Defendant has previously been found to have published online communications without identifying himself as the author (see for instance paragraphs 73–78 of the [Liability] Judgment) and (c) the unusual style of the emails is consistent with that of the Defendant: examples being the use of “i” in lower case, on two occasions… (see paragraph 56 of the [Liability] Judgment) and the spelling of “judgement” in the same email (see paragraphs 56, 73–74, 75–76 and 94–95 of the [Liability] Judgment and the entries for 1 July 2020 and 21 July 2020 (18.02) in Appendix 2 to the [Liability] Judgment].”
The evidence strongly suggests that the Defendant was responsible for contacting Legal Futures purporting to be the Claimant. It certainly has all the hallmarks of actions of the Defendant. It is not necessary for me to reach a concluded view. This issue only has potential relevance to the issue of whether I am satisfied that the Defendant is aware of the judgment of 24 August 2020 finding him in contempt. I am so satisfied, but this is as a result of his having been sent the Liability Judgment and the Order directly using the email address that he had previously using effectively to communicate with the Court and no non-delivery receipt being received. I remain satisfied that the Defendant has judged that his best interests lie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marie-Therese Elisabeth Helene Hohenberg Bailey v Anthony John Bailey
...suspension was as it was, but only very briefly.” 61 I have also re-read the helpful guidance given by Nicklin J in Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB) (at [14]–[21]), wherein he referred to the objects of the sanction being: (1) to punish the historic breach of the court's order by the ......
-
Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc v Rizwan Hussain
...influenced by this. Counsel for Mr Hussain relied in support of this ground upon the statement of Nicklin J in Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB) at [16] that “[s]imilar to the role of the prosecution in a criminal court where the court is considering sentence, the party seeking punishm......
-
Hassan Khan & Company v Mrs Iman Said Al-Rawas
... [2019] EWCA Civ 392 at §§58–60, 69; Financial Conduct Authority v McKendrick [2019] EWCA Civ 524 at §§39 to 48, 69; Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2658 at §§ 14 to 18; Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2796 (Ch) at §14; Nobu Su v. Lakatamia Shipping Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1355 at §......
-
Minstrell Recruitment Ltd v John Lockett
...factors that have been identified in some of the earlier cases were conveniently summarised by Nicklin J in Oliver v Shaikh (No.2) [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB) at [17]–[18], “The Court's task when determining the appropriate sanction to assess is to assess culpability and harm. The Court will con......