Pattinson v Winsor: committal application over judicial harassment withdrawn on compassionate grounds

The High Court has recorded, for the public record, the circumstances in which a long-running committal application arising from a harassment campaign against a serving district judge was resolved by consent, the claimant electing to withdraw on compassionate grounds rather than press for his brother-in-law's imprisonment.

Mr Justice Linden set out the background in Pattinson v Winsor [2026] EWHC 1668 (KB), handed down on 3 July 2026, explaining a consent order made two days earlier. The dispute originated in the estate of the defendant's late mother, whose will named the claimant and his wife as executors. After the defendant's challenge to the will was dismissed in the Chancery Division, he embarked on a sustained email campaign accusing the claimant, a district judge in the magistrates' court, of fraud, theft, forgery and abuse of judicial office, circulating the allegations to judges, court staff, senior HMCTS figures, politicians and others.

Steyn J granted an interim injunction in February 2024, and Aidan Eardley KC made a final order in July 2024. Linden J found the defendant in contempt over 17 breaches and, in November 2024, imposed a four-month sentence suspended for two years, together with an extended civil restraint order. The Court of Appeal dismissed the resulting appeal as totally without merit and made a general civil restraint order. In June 2025 the claimant applied to activate the suspended sentence, relying on at least 25 further breaches, and sought an additional penalty.

Much of the judgement chronicles an extended procedural impasse. The defendant, unrepresented throughout despite repeated confirmation of his eligibility for legal aid, sought successive postponements on grounds of ill health and lack of representation, but did not provide the updated medical evidence the court repeatedly directed him to obtain. Hearings listed for December 2025 and January 2026 did not proceed. The defendant did not attend the January hearing, having been hospitalised following an attempt on his own life, and made further threats to self-harm.

Faced with continued non-attendance unsupported by medical justification, and mindful of the defendant's safety, Linden J issued a warrant for his arrest under CPR 81.7(2) to secure his attendance and to pre-empt a threatened repetition. The defendant was arrested and attended the hearing of 1 July 2026 remotely from a police station, supported by two observers from an organisation that had corresponded with the court on his behalf.

Before learning of the arrest, and in response to renewed threats, the claimant had already indicated that he wished to withdraw the application, unwilling to play any part in his brother-in-law coming to harm. At the hearing, agreement was reached. Under the consent order the defendant would comply with the existing injunction, the application would be withdrawn, and he would pay the summarily assessed costs, which the claimant undertook not to enforce absent a change in the defendant's means. Of particular significance to the defendant was the claimant's undertaking not to seek a sale of the property in which the defendant holds a life interest, a fear that appeared to have driven the correspondence.

Linden J observed that, had the application been pursued, activation of the suspended sentence was virtually certain and a further custodial term highly likely. He nonetheless permitted withdrawal, concluding that the public interest was better served by the hope that the defendant would now comply, and commended the claimant's restraint after what he described as a lengthy and frustrating process.