Derbyshire County Council seeks committal for contempt

Background of the Case

The Court of Protection was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for James Grundy, who was found in contempt of court following breaches of an injunction. The case was brought by Derbyshire County Council, with the interested party being P, represented by Sarah Bendikas as her litigation friend.

Proceedings and Representation

The hearing took place at the Derby Justice Centre on 29 January 2025, with District Judge Davies presiding. Ms. Kate McKinlay represented the claimant, Derbyshire County Council, while Mr. Joseph Markus acted on behalf of the defendant, James Grundy. Mr. Richard Borrett submitted written arguments for the interested party, P.

Details of the Breaches

James Grundy was previously found to have breached an injunction on four occasions, as determined in a judgment dated 20 January 2025. The injunction was initially put in place to supervise and limit Grundy's contact with P, in her best interests. Despite the injunction, Grundy continued unsupervised visits, which were deemed harmful to P's welfare.

Arguments Presented

During the sentencing hearing, Ms. McKinlay argued that a prison sentence was necessary for compliance and deterrence, as previous measures had failed. Mr. Markus, representing Grundy, acknowledged the breaches but argued for leniency, citing Grundy's longstanding relationship with P and potential cognitive issues.

Impact on P

Mr. Borrett highlighted the adverse effects of Grundy's visits on P, including distress and fear. The local authority suggested that these visits might necessitate P's move to residential care, contrary to her wishes. The court was urged to consider these impacts when determining the sentence.

Judge's Decision

Judge Davies decided to activate the suspended sentence previously imposed on Grundy and sentenced him to an additional 28 days of imprisonment for the recent breaches. The sentences were to run concurrently, with credit given for time already spent in custody.

Legal Considerations

The court referred to the Wigan Borough Council v Lovett case as a guiding framework, although not binding in the Court of Protection context. The judge categorised the breaches as high culpability and significant harm, justifying the custodial sentence.

Conclusion and Implications

The judgment underscored the court's commitment to enforcing injunctions designed to protect vulnerable individuals. It also highlighted the potential consequences of non-compliance, serving as a warning to others in similar situations.

Learn More

To explore key legal considerations in similar cases, view BeCivil's Housing Law Guide.

Copyright & permissions