Committal for Contempt of Court: Bernicia Group -v- Matthew Leiper
Case No: N00NE158
[2026] EWCC 58
IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT AT BERWICK UPON TWEED
12 August 2026
Before:
District Judge Dodsworth
Between:
Bernicia Group
-v-
Matthew Leiper
District Judge Dodsworth:
1. This matter comes before me this afternoon to decide on the appropriate punishment for the Respondent in this case, Mr Matthew Leiper, following a finding that he was in contempt of court made by me at a hearing on 15 July 2026. The Applicant in these committal proceedings is Bernicia Group, which is a well known local social landlord.
2. On 15 July 2026 the Respondent failed to attend the hearing of the Applicant’s committal application. I decided to proceed in his absence and the reasons why I came to that conclusion were set out in my written judgment of that date. On that occasion, I found that the Respondent did not give up possession of the Applicant’s land by 8 April 2026 and that he continued to leave vehicles on the Applicant’s land until at least 15 July 2026.
3. I adjourned sentencing for that finding until today’s date. I am satisfied that the Respondent is aware of today’s hearing because I had a certificate of service from Stuart Reed, a process server instructed on behalf of the Applicant, confirming that the Respondent was personally served with the order from 15 July 2026, my written judgment from that date, and notice of today’s hearing. Those documents were all handed to the Respondent on 29 July 2026 at 8.30am. I am also satisfied that the Defendant has had sufficient time to prepare for this hearing. He has chosen not to attend and has not advanced any reason for his non attendance.
4. I am perfectly satisfied that it is appropriate to conduct the sentencing exercise today and that a further adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Respondent’s attendance. He has failed to attend two hearings in these proceedings and there is no indication that he would seek to engage with the proceedings if a further adjournment was granted.
5. I have had regard to the well known case of Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631. I remind myself that the objectives of sentencing for breach of an anti social behaviour injunction are, firstly, to ensure future compliance with the order, secondly, punishment for the breach that has occurred, and thirdly, rehabilitation of the contemnor.
6. The options available to me today are, firstly, immediate committal to prison, secondly, a suspended committal to proceed to prison with conditions, thirdly, to adjourn for consideration of the punishment, fourthly, a fine, and fifthly, to make no order.
7. I remind myself that the maximum term of imprisonment is 2 years – see section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Half of the period of imprisonment will be served – see section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which governs the release ofprisoners sentenced for contempt of court. If I pass a sentence of imprisonment, I need to be satisfied that the custody threshold is met. The custody threshold can be found at section 230(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 and is as follows:
“The court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that (a) the offence or, (b) the combination of the offence, and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.”
8. I have to assess the culpability and harm that has been caused by the breach, and I do so by reference to the table in Lovett, which was expressly approved by the Court of Appeal in that case. Here, I consider that the culpability is in Band A. That is to say high culpability, very serious or persistent breaches of the injunction. I find it is in band A given the long history of this case and the long history of attempts by the Applicant to address the Defendant’s behaviour short of applying for an injunction. The Respondent has failed to engage at all with the Applicant, either pre-proceedings, during the proceedings, and he has not complied with the injunction. Vehicles continue to come on and off the land.
9. I was provided with photographs taken recently which show the continued presence of vehicles, and Miss Najah, who acts on behalf of the Applicant, has taken instructions from her client that vehicles continue to bepresent there as at today’s date.
10. I find that the harm falls within category 2. That is to say harm falls between category 1 and 3. There is no evidence before me that would persuade me the breach was one that had caused very serious harm or distress to local residents and so it is not within category 1. The breaches have caused more than little or no distress or harm so they do not fall within category 3. The presence of these vehicles is an eyesore for the local residents, they block the highway and they are present in close proximity to a school. The vehicles are in disrepair and present an obvious hazard to children who may be passing by the area where the vehicles are being kept. This is a case that falls within category 2.
11. Accordingly, this is a breach that falls within the bracket A2. That provides the starting point of 3 months immediate custody with a range of adjourned consideration to 6 months custody.
12. There do not appear to me to be any aggravating features. It might be thought that the length of time the Respondent’s conduct has gone on for would be an aggravating feature, but as I have already reflectedthat in my assessment of culpability, it would be wrong to double count it. As the Respondent has failed to attend, no mitigation has been advanced on his behalf. Accordingly, in the absence of any aggravating features or mitigating features, it seems to me the starting point is the correct end point.
13. I am satisfied that the custody threshold has been passed because the Respondent’s behaviour is contumelious. He has shown a total disregard for the legal process and no punishment other than immediate custodial punishment seems to be appropriate given his behaviour.
14. Accordingly, I sentence the Respondent to 3 months’ immediate imprisonment. One month of that reflects the need to ensure the future compliance with the injunction and 2 months reflects the punishment element of the sentence. A Bench warrant will be issued for the arrest of the Respondent.