Committal for Contempt of Court: R -v- Steven Catterall
Case Number: S20240287
In the Crown Court at Manchester
19 August 2024
Before:
His Honour Judge Smith
Between:
R
-v-
Steven Catterall
Judgment
JUDGE SMITH: Yes, Mr Sastry. We have to consider the issue of contempt.
MR SASTRY: Yes, clearly the relevant documents or some of them, rather, are uploaded to the system, one of those being the notice to Mr Catterall –
JUDGE SMITH: Is that loaded to…?
MR SASTRY: 07.
JUDGE SMITH: I think Mr Staunton should have the notice.
MR STAUNTON: I have seen the notice that was sent through via our solicitors, but I do not have any access.
JUDGE SMITH: It is the case in relation to it, and I do not know that it is or it is not a DCS file. Let me have a look.
MR SASTRY: I do not think there is a separate one.
JUDGE SMITH: There is a number, you will see on listing, which is S20240287.
MR SASTRY: Thank you, your Honour.
JUDGE SMITH: But it may not actually be a DCS file and I suspect it is not. Certainly, I do not have it as far as I can tell. The notice pursuant to paragraph 48.7, which is the notice setting out a statement of the particulars of conduct, which was signed by Mr Collins, was sent to the defendant. According to an email from Mr Shaw, at Forest Bank, he confirmed that was served on Mr Catterall on 14th August at 3.20 pm.
MR SASTRY: Yes.
JUDGE SMITH: Mr Catterall explained to myself exactly what the court’s paperwork was before entering back into his class in the education department. That notice was and, I think, is on Mr Catterall’s file. Actually, it may just be in the private section. It was sent to Carmel Murphy at Khattak(?) Solicitors. That was as a courtesy so that Mr Catterall could receive legal representation today. This is the postponement of the enquiry into the allegations as to his contempt, which is Rule 48.7.
MR SASTRY: Yes.
JUDGE SMITH: I indicated or it was indicated in the notice that there would be a transcript available or certainly a transcript has been asked for. The process of obtaining transcripts, however, has now been made more rigorous and formal. There is no such transcript available today. Maybe one is not necessary. But just so that you know and Mr Catterall knows, a request was made. Unfortunately, and I have listened to part of the DARTS system in relation to that afternoon, the DARTS system that I have looked for does not actually deal with the bit that I asked for, which is – and I will have to make sure the transcript is right – the entirety of the time that Mr Catterall was in court, which included times when the jury were not present, because that is when he was given advice by myself.
Therefore, to reflect on matters, Mr Staunton, first of all as to what it is that is alleged and the procedures that are going to be undertaken now, and the potential consequences. As far as the allegation and using the note as a draft, on 13th August, Mr Catterall was produced at this court subject to a Home Office production order for the purposes of giving evidence at a trial of Patrik Tokar. Patrik Tokar was and still is on trial for the attempted murder of Mr Catterall and, alternatively, that Mr Tokar wounded Mr Catterall with intent to cause him really serious harm as well as being in the unlawful possession of a bladed article. Clearly, those are the two most serious offences.
In relation to those allegations, Mr Catterall was the sole direct witness to what it is took place on the night of 29th August. He had made a statement to the police on 31st August 2023. He made subsequently, in December 2023, a retraction statement. If you do not have those, I can provide you, if you wish to have them, with those statements.
MR STAUNTON: No, I am aware of them.
JUDGE SMITH: In the first of those statements, he identified Mr Tokar as being the man who was the assailant responsible directly for both wounds that he received, slashing-type wounds to the neck, to the left side of his neck underneath his chin and also a stab wound to the back, inflicted, as he said, by means of a machete.
When he came to court on 13th August, he indicated to a police officer that he would not be willing to give evidence. As a consequence of that expression, he was made the subject of a summons which was then served upon him in the cells by the officer in the case. In the afternoon of 13th August, Mr Catterall appeared and was sitting in the witness box. Before the jury were called, he indicated that he wished to speak to me and stated that he was not going to be answering any questions and that he would not be answering any questions.
At that point, I then advised him that any witness or anyone subject to a summons was required and had to answer questions when so asked. A failure to do just that, in answering those questions, was itself potentially a contempt of this court. That the consequences of that could be imprisonment or punishment by way of fine.
MR STAUNTON: So, penal consequences were explained.
JUDGE SMITH: Yes. I am setting out, effectively – in the position that I am, I am effectively prosecutor and judge at the same time, but I am dealing with it necessarily on a summary basis and explaining the position to you. If, at all, Mr Catterall takes issue with what it is that I am saying, you can, of course, take instructions and I will give you the opportunity to confirm with him whether there is any disagreement between us.
After I told Mr Catterall that what he was proposing to do could put in him contempt of court and that it could have penal consequences for him, he indicated that he understood but, nevertheless, that would be his position. Subsequently, he was asked questions by prosecution counsel, Mr Brian Williams. He did affirm, so he took an affirmation. But he then indicated that he would not be answering any questions before the jury. He answered, however, a few, including that it was he that was the subject matter of the injuries shown on some photographs that were taken of him.
Thereafter, when he was asked who did that and whether he recalled what happened, he responded that while he had heard the question and understood it, he did not want to answer any questions and would not answer that question. He was, therefore, made on application by the Crown – I gave permission for him to be treated as a hostile witness and the statements which I have indicated were then put to him. He then confirmed, having made the statement, the date and also confirmed having subsequently made a retraction statement. He confirmed both statements.
Thereafter, with the, I think, one exception when, in the course of cross-examination, he made some comment about the number of stitches that had been received to his neck, he either – I will put it this way – said nothing, he turned away from counsel and said nothing or, when confirmed whether he was saying anything, he said he would not be answering any questions or that he was maintaining silence, but he had nothing to say in response to questions that were asked of him. Whilst there may have been answers, those were the nature of the answers which always indicated that he did not intend to answer the direct questions put to him.
During the course of his evidence, I, in turn, reminded him of the advice that I had given him earlier and the potential consequences of continuing not to answer questions, which he indicated he understood, but nevertheless continued with that course of action.
After the evidence had been completed, Mr Catterall, in the absence of the jury, was then given advice by myself, further advice as to what was then going to happen, which was, in terms, that there would be served upon him the notice that was subsequently served upon him and that the enquiry into his conduct for contempt would be postponed today. He was advised that he had the right then to legal representation and he then indicated to me that the solicitors he had in these proceedings were Khattak’s and that he intended, on his return to Forest Bank, to make contact with them, to inform them as to what had happened.
Again, I think it is right I advised him as to the potential contempt, the potential consequences of that. At that point, Mr Catterall indicated that he had PTSD, that he could not do this anymore, that he had to think of his own mental health, that he meant no disrespect to the court and, again, he said, “I’m sorry, sir”. At all times in his conduct towards myself, he was polite, recognised the consequences and indicated that he meant no disrespect but, nevertheless, he was going to maintain the position that he had adopted.
As far as the explanation, which I do not say I necessarily accept, was concerned, in his retraction statement of 2nd October last year – I think I said December – 2nd October last year, he said that as far as the previous statement:
“I maintain everything I said is the truth. However, I do not feel that I am in the right mindset to fully support the investigation. What took place has affected me negatively. I am struggling with my mental health and, being the victim of this, has driven me to turn to drink and drugs for the first time in nine months just in order to try and cope with what has happened to me. I have even found it difficult to maintain contact with support services. At this time, I do not want to attend court and give evidence, as I must concentrate on myself to try and move on. I know I could change my mind about this but, at the moment, this is what I feel is best for me. I am still willing for my medical records to be obtained and used in evidence. I understand the case may still proceed without me.”
That is so you have a gist of what he said by way of explanation, as such, and what had previously been stated. There had been – and whether this rightly supports the – I suppose you should know, when the case was listed in February, Mr Catterall was then a serving prisoner on re-call – it matters not – in Liverpool. And an application was made for a link to this court from Liverpool, because the matter was in for trial at that point. The application for a link was made in special measures form, as opposed to anything else, but was in this phrase:
“This witness is the complainant. The officer in the case, when checking the above witness confirmation of trial. He is currently in HMP Liverpool. Said that he was anxious and fearful about giving evidence in court and asked if he could be afforded the use of a live link from HMP Liverpool.”
However, he did not indicate that he would then not give evidence. That, I hope, is as full an account that we have. The detail, as such, is summarised in the notice; the particulars of the alleged conduct being: (1) that he intentionally refused to answer questions when asked by both prosecuting and defence counsel; (2) he stated that he would not be answering any questions; (3) he remained silent when asked questions or confirmed that he would not be answering questions that were asked.
MR STAUNTON: That was a very helpful document and enabled me to have a full conference with him this morning. Might I, at this stage, ask the court to consider making a representation order to him for my attendance today.
JUDGE SMITH: Can I do that? Certainly, he is entitled to Legal Aid for a committal hearing. In hope your solicitors would have done something about it after they got notice.
MR STAUNTON: I can assume that but I do not know that. Come what may, I shall make representations.
JUDGE SMITH: Mr Staunton, if I am allowed – because in breach of proceedings, I can – I am not aware, without being taken to it, of a provision that I can grant a representation order for contempt proceedings. If it be the case that I am allowed to do so, then I would, of course, grant you a representation order for Legal Aid.
MR STAUNTON: Yes.
JUDGE SMITH: If that representation or indication by me can be used effectively with the Legal Aid Board. If I cannot, to obtain a retrospective grant of Legal Aid to cover the representation, then you may use that as you are able to.
MR STAUNTON: Yes, thank you. Your Honour, may I move on. The defendant remembers being treated compassionately by the court, namely you. The court fully understood that this was a situation where he was the alleged victim of an extremely –
JUDGE SMITH: Just before you start doing this, I have set out basically the position. What I do have to do – because, as you know, the consequences are, in the event of contempt being found, that he could be sent to prison or fined or no action taken – he has to be given an opportunity to be represented, which he is, and have the facts set out, which they have been. But he then has to be asked whether or not he accepts the conduct in question. If he does not, then if he accepts it, then I can –
MR STAUNTON: He does accept it.
JUDGE SMITH: – then give him further representations. I think, in fairness, I still have to ask whether he accepts the allegations or not.
MR SASTRY: It is 48.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, which is the notice that governs the procedure at this point.
MR STAUNTON: Yes, he accepts all those actions on his part and inactions that have been outlined.
JUDGE SMITH: Can I just make sure and I will do it myself. Mr Catterall, can you stand, please. You heard what I set out this morning.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE SMITH: Firstly, I did say to Mr Staunton I would give him an opportunity to speak to you to see if you disagreed with anything I have just said to him. So, rather than going through Mr Staunton, I will ask you directly. Do you have any disagreement with what I have just said?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
JUDGE SMITH: You do not?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
JUDGE SMITH: I will just ask and I have to put this directly to you, because the conduct that is alleged directly is that you intentionally refused to answer questions, when asked, by both prosecuting and defence counsel, when called as a witness on 13th August. You stated you would not be answering any questions and that you remained silent when asked questions or confirmed that you would not be answering those questions that were asked. Do you accept that – do you admit that conduct?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE SMITH: You do, very well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Staunton.
MR STAUNTON: The defendant would hope that the court would make allowances for the position that he was in at the material time. This is not a witness, a key witness in a trial of an accusation relating to a third party, who was the victim. He was the person whose throat was almost severed. In answer to questions to your Honour, as regards his state of mind at the material time, his description of it to me was that his “head was in bits”.
Your Honour may not appreciate that there was an order preventing him being contacted or in contact with the alleged perpetrator, while they both shared the same prison. Somewhat startlingly, I am informed that they were both placed in the same holding cell prior to being transported to these courts on the day in question. That holding cell, there was no supervision within. He does not contend that there was any inappropriate communication, but it does somewhat beggar belief. He was then also placed in the same transport and, albeit that he had earlier made it clear from his retraction at an earlier stage, that his stance – well, it could have been anticipated, those were factors that did not help him in – there is no suggestion of any impropriety but his personal safety certainly was somewhat shaken by the fact that he was in close proximity to the defendant at the material time.
I would hope that the court could consider admonishing him in the form of it were to effectively purge his contempt in the understanding that the actual proceedings have been able to continue and, although the verdict is unclear and it may be open to the court to await the outcome of the verdict, were the court to be interested in seeking to analyse that and determine whether or not to what extent his non-compliance affected the verdict.
I have come into court this afternoon seeing footage being played of him in hospital, which is obviously footage, I take, which has been played to the jury, not quite a dying declaration but close to. So, I understand that they will have heard what he told the police. If I am in error, I…
JUDGE SMITH: They have heard what he told the police in the hospital, which was a completely different account to that which was given in his statement.
MR STAUNTON: Yes. He would obviously wish the matter to be at an end. He will accept his actions amounted to a contempt and that the interests of justice do not extend solely to what he thinks would be – is not his case. He tells me that his daughter, who is beloved, had received a threat but he cannot suggest that it was necessarily attributable to the actions of any party. That is also a factor in his decision. I note that it is open to a defendant in these circumstances to plead duress, but he does not wish to do that. It was a factor but ultimately it was his decision. Your Honour saw him on the day and can assess, in nautical terms, the cut of his jib, how he appeared to be.
He openly and frankly through me acknowledges also the fact that there is an unwritten rule about grassing but that was a minor factor that he acknowledges is in the back of his mind. It may be that had impacted on his considerations at some stage in the proceedings.
Ultimately, your Honour, most people would find it hard to understand, if the victim of such a serious crime is in a position to identify the assailant, why they would not choose to testify to that effect. Clearly, forces were operating on the defendant’s mind such as to prevent him, in the circumstances. But in many ways, I would hope that the court would show a degree of compassion, if not mercy, in determining whether or not a custodial sentence, which could be – albeit that he is in custody at the moment – if the court wished to mark it as worthy of a custodial sentence, the court could consider marking it as either a suspended sentence or acknowledging the reality of the fact that he is in custody at the moment – as short as your Honour’s public duty permits. I know not if that assists.
JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. Mr Staunton, you say “purge his contempt”. I do not need, I think, for him to make further apologies because I received those apologies on the day. I can give him that opportunity but, effectively, through you, you have extended that apology, asking that he accepts he wishes to purge his contempt through that apology. I take into account and will take into account that apology and what he said to me during the course of the trial.
As far as awaiting the outcome is concerned, whatever the outcome of the trial, I cannot, with certainty and could never with certainty, say how the failure to give evidence might affect or might have affected the outcome of that trial. In many ways, whilst in some cases it is appropriate to deal with a contempt at the end of the case, effectively I am dealing with the case at the end of the case. I do not think it has to be dealt with to the very end of the case by waiting for a verdict. In some ways, it is better not to. Thank you.
Mr Catterall, if you just stand, please. As you well know, on 29th August 2023, you were subject to a serious assault. That assault included a wound inflicted clearly by a sharp instrument of some sort, whether it be a machete, as you suggested, or a knife; it matters not. The wound to the neck was a slash wound of some severity and in close proximity to vital organs, including your carotid arteries, jugular veins, nervous system and airways. You were also stabbed to the back.
As a consequence of those injuries, and you being the victim of that assault, and upon your own statement and evidence, Mr Patrik Tokar stands trial now for two offences or, substantially, for two alternative offences. The first, the attempted murder of yourself. Secondly, wounding you with intent to cause you really serious harm. Each of those offences, in themselves, are very serious offences, clearly, the most serious. Had the consequences to you not been favourable, had that wound been closer to the bodily systems that I have identified, Mr Tokar may have been facing a difference charge. You may have been having a completely different outcome.
But I set that out because, when I come to deal with you for your now admitted contempt, I have to have regard to the very serious nature of the underlying offences. When you were called to give evidence on 13th August and responding to a summons that was served on you on that morning, you indicated immediately to me that you had no intention at all to answer any questions; that you understood the consequences of doing that, which were explained to you. They included being committed to prison for contempt. Although those outcomes were identified, that is the course of conduct you chose to pursue.
Throughout the evidence, both in examination-in-chief and cross-examination, you refused to answer questions when asked. You maintained your position of silence. That was entirely deliberate and, at the end and conclusion of your evidence, you indicated to me the reasons being that you had to put your own health first, that you had suffered from post-traumatic stress as a consequence of this incident and you did not want to continue to re-live it. Re-live it you had to, effectively, by the statement being read to you. You have said, through Mr Staunton today, that your head then was not in the right place.
At the time, you were always respectful to the court and you did apologise for what you knew were the consequences of your actions. I take all those into account and I accept, from what is told to me, although, as Mr Staunton has indicated, it is an entirely surprising feature to find that you were placed in the same holding cell as Mr Tokar on your way to court and to court. Those are factors that may have played in your mind to some extent.
However, where a witness, whoever it may be, whether it is a witness to somebody else doing something, whether it is a witness of something being done to them – where those offences are in themselves very serious, and the consequences to the court and to the judicial process, where somebody refuses deliberately to co-operate, that can lead to and potentially lead to all manners of injustice. I am looking at the potential here and it is potential. I cannot say what is the right thing in relation to this case because, apart from anything else, you did not give evidence and you were not properly tested on your evidence and it cannot be said, one way or the other. The final determination ultimately is not for me anyway.
All I can say is that the potential consequences in this case, as it would be in any other cases, are for injustice to be done. That is as a result of your own decisions. The failure by any witness to give evidence in a case as serious as this would, in my view, be something that would call for a prison sentence or a committal to prison. In your case, it seems to me, notwithstanding the apologies you have offered, that must be the position. I take into account, however, those apologies and the way in which you were respectful to this court in determining the appropriate punishment, which is significantly less than it might otherwise be.
The sentence I impose is one of committal to prison for a period of three months. You will, as far as that sentence itself is concerned, be obliged to serve half of that term in custody. That is half of the three-month sentence. Bearing in mind your current position in relation to the other matters, you will clearly not be entitled to be released at that point, in any event. The sentence on this is not effectively three months’ imprisonment, although it is often stated to be; it is committal to prison for three months for your contempt. You can now be taken down. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Staunton, is there anything else?
MR STAUNTON: No, your Honour.
JUDGE SMITH: I think, in accordance with the practice, transcripts have to be sent certainly to the defence and the parties, as well as everybody else. Thank you.
(The hearing concluded)
IN THE MATTER OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
Relating to
Steven CATTERALL
Who attended as a witness in the trial of Patrik Tokar at Manchester Crown Court on 13th August 2024. Mr Tokar was charged with offences of violence against Mr Catterall – including attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
- A statement of the particulars of Mr Catterall’s conduct that was alleged to amount to contempt in the face of the Court issued pursuant to CPR 48.7 was duly served on Mr Catterall on 14th August 2024.
- Mr Catterall was represented by Counsel.
- Mr Catterall admitted the conduct amounted to contempt by him namely that during the course of the trial:-
i. He intentionally refused to answer questions when asked by both Prosecuting and Defence Counsel;
ii. He stated that he would not be answering any questions;
iii. He remained silent when asked questions or confirmed that he would not be answering those questions that were asked. - The Court found that the admitted conduct of Mr Catterall amounted to a contempt of court.
- The court ordered that Steven CATTERALL be committed to prison for a period of 3 months.
- In determining the appropriate penalty the Court took into account:-
i. The very serious nature of the underlying offences to which Mr Catterall was a witness;
ii. The potential for his conduct having a significant impact on the just outcome of the trial in which he was called as a witness;
iii. The potential impact generally on the administration of justice of a witness failing to give evidence when called to do so;
iv. The apologies tendered by Mr Catterall both during the trial and at the contempt hearing;
v. The reasons put forward for his conduct – namely the potential impact on his own mental health. - A transcript of the sentencing remarks was directed to be obtained on an expedited basis.