A defendant who had been restrained by an injunction from publishing certain videos on his YouTube channel and had been found to be in contempt of court for continuing to publish them and was given a suspended prison sentence, was in contempt of court by publishing further similar videos and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
An order for committal for breach of a confiscation order was quashed where the magistrates had failed to apply the correct statutory test under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.82(4). They had not stated that they were satisfied as to the claimants’ wilful refusal or culpable neglect in defaulting on payment, nor that they had considered and ruled out all alternative options of enforcing payment. Instead, they had focused on the claimants’ delay in complying with the order and on the fact that sufficient assets were available to satisfy it.
The Crown Court had been wrong to direct that the time spent by an offender on a qualifying curfew before a suspended sentence should not count towards his sentence once it had been activated; it had no discretion to do so under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.240A. The error was symptomatic of the labyrinthine nature of criminal sentencing legislation with which the courts had to deal.
A sentence of two months’ imprisonment for bringing a controlled drug into a prison was appropriate despite the fact that the offender was a carer for her disabled daughter and grandchild. The judge had also been entitled to activate part of the offender’s suspended sentence for a different offence and order it to run consecutively.
The court emphasised the importance of properly structuring the extension period to the length of a period of disqualification from driving as required by the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s.35A and s.35B, and in accordance with the guidance in R. v Needham (Paul Maurice)  EWCA Crim 455.