Committal for contempt of court: The London Borough of Enfield -v- Bihane Kamberi and Ewa Chodorowska

Magistrates' courtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court

26 June 2025

Before:

District Judge Oliver

Between:

The London Borough of Enfield

-v-

Bihane Kamberi
and
Ewa Chodorowska (McKenzie Friend)

Judgment re contempt of court

Overview

  1. The Applicant sought liability orders for alleged non-payment of council tax. The relevant legal provisions are the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
  2. On 29 May 2025, Ms Chodorowska appeared before a different constitution of this court together with a number of supporters. Those proceedings were disrupted and police were called. The court session was ultimately abandoned and the cases listed adjourned to 25 June 2025.
  3. On 25 June 2025, I was made aware that there had been social media activity, from a group entitled “Council Tax Illegal” , encouraging members to attend court on 25 June 2025 and detailing that on 29 May 2025: “The judges left the room four times as refused to confirm court jurisdiction (sic).”
  4. On 25 June 2025, Ms Chodorowska attended with a number of supporters and a McKenzie Friend. She refused to identify herself and persistently attempted to question me about the court’s jurisdiction. I explained that if she did not provide her details I could not be satisfied that she had any business before the court and would forfeit the opportunity to make submissions. I explained that the court did have jurisdiction, under the legislation I have detailed above, the system was adversarial, and it was not my function to answer questions from her. She confirmed her name, she said under duress, and I considered her submissions which included that the summons had been fraudulently issued and she had discharged her liability by sending a five-pound note and a document entitled “Bill of Exchange.” I did not find any merit in the submissions, giving reasons for my conclusions, and made the liability order.
  5. On 26 June 2025 there were further applications for liability orders listed before me. Ms Bihane Kamberi attended with Ms Chodorowska acting as a McKenzie Friend.
  6. Ms Kamberi refused to confirm her name and repeatedly asked the court to confirm its jurisdiction. I conducted the same exercise as occurred on 25 June 2025. After 5 or 6 warnings of the consequence of not providing her name, I asked Ms Kamberi and Ms Chodorowska to leave court. They declined to do so. Security were called and I retired.
  7. Security were unable to remove the parties and police were called. I was unable to sit, but, after 30 minutes or so, spoke to magistrates in another courtroom and they agreed that I could sit in their court to conclude my list.
  8. I was unable to return to my original courtroom and directed that Ms Kamberi and Ms Chodorowska be detained as I was considering initiating contempt proceedings. I was unable to communicate that to them directly such was the commotion in the courtroom.

The Contempt proceedings

  1. Approximately 45 minutes after I had risen, several police officers attended and Ms Chodorowska and Ms Kamberi were detained in the court cells. I drafted a written allegation contrary to section 12 (1) (b) Contempt of Court Act 1981 and ensured that a duty solicitor (assigned to another courtroom) went to see Ms Chodorowska and Ms Kamberi.
  2. I was informed that Ms Chodorowska would be arrested as she had assaulted a gaoler or police officer. In light of the disorder, I determined that it was necessary to prevent members of the group attending the hearing to prevent further disorder. I was sitting in a civil jurisdiction, so the Criminal Practice Direction 2023 was not directly applicable, but I carefully considered part 2 of the Practice Direction and the importance of open justice in arriving at the conclusion that refusing access to the group was a necessary step to prevent disorder. The open justice principle will be maintained by the publication of this judgment, a copy of which will be sent to all parties.
  3. As I was exercising the magistrates’ courts civil jurisdiction, the Criminal Procedure Rules did not directly apply. The Magistrates’ Courts Rules, which govern civil procedure in the Magistrates’ Courts, do not currently contain rules about contempt (I understand that such rules are currently being drafted).
  4. Section 12 of the 1981 Act applies irrespective of whether the Magistrates’ Court is exercising its civil or criminal jurisdiction. Despite not being directly applicable, I followed the process contained in the Criminal Procedure Rules.
  5. By about 16:45, one hour and 45 minutes after I had first retired, I confirmed with the duty solicitor (Mr French) that he had spoken to Ms Chodorowska and Ms Kamberi, explained the process and possible sanctions and that neither wished to be represented.
  6. Once in court, I read the allegations aloud and detailed all the matters contained in Criminal Procedure Rule 48.5. I explained that if Ms Kamberi and Ms Chodorowska apologised no action may be taken, they could speak to Mr French who would represent them and that they faced committal to custody and or a fine if the contempt was admitted or proved. I offered them further time to reflect. They both refused to see Mr French and declined further time.
  7. Ms Chodorowska accepted that she was in contempt by misbehaving in court and apologised although she went on to state that she had done nothing wrong and was entitled to question the jurisdiction of the court. Ms Kamberi would only state that the court had no jurisdiction. I took that to be a denial.
  8. As the alleged contempt involved conduct I had not witnessed (refusal to leave the courtroom and the consequent disruption to the business of the court), I did not recuse myself from the hearing applying the well-known test in Porter v McGill [2001] UKHL 67.
  9. Chris Kafetzis was sworn and gave the following evidence.

“I am a Team Leader for Enfield Council and Council tax. I am the council representative that takes the liability bulk hearing list for council tax cases. Ms Kamberi was called up, she asked to see the judge on the day as she had a case within the bulk list. She was asked to confirm her name which she didn’t respond to. Her response was, if I remember correctly, asking about the jurisdiction of the court. The judge asked, don’t know how many times, possibly 5, 6 times, “please confirm your name”. She kept asking about the jurisdiction of the court and she was given a final warning saying that if she refused she would be escorted from the court. She refused and that’s where security were asked to remove her from the court. Security came in, they were then asked to remove her. They did ask Ms Kamberi to remove herself voluntarily. She kept refusing and said she would not move and she said she would call the police if that was an option and it went on for about 30 mins. That is when we were then asked to vacate the court and move to court 3.

  1. Ms Kamberi was offered the opportunity to cross examine the witness and asked questions about jurisdiction which I indicated that the witness need not answer.
  2. On the evidence, I was sure that the contempt alleged had occurred.
  3. I offered Ms Kamberi and Ms Chodorowska a further opportunity to address me. Ms Kamberi again queried the jurisdiction of the court and Ms Chodorowska stated that they had been poorly treated and that she had health issues.

Sanction

  1. The court may fine, commit to custody for up to one month or both. There is no power to suspend such a committal.
  2. Both Ms Kamberi and Ms Chodorowska demonstrated an intransigent attitude towards payment of their council tax and did not accept that the court had jurisdiction. It seemed to me that any financial penalty would not be paid. Moreover, this was a willful and calculated attempt to disrupt the court proceedings. The conduct was so serious that only a committal to custody could be justified.
  3. I sentenced Ms Kamberi to seven days and Ms Chodorowska to five days. I was of the view that that was the shortest period commensurate with the seriousness of their conduct. Both were told that they will be unconditionally released after serving half of the term.

District Judge Oliver
26 June 2025