Wyatt & Wyatt v Lee Mavin [2025] EWCC 47

[2025] EWCC 47Case No K3PP6075
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT OXFORD
Oxford Combined Court,
St Aldates,
Oxford,
OX1 1TL
Date of hearing: 25 June 2025
Page Count: 10 Word Count: 3047 Number of Folios: 43
Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE MELISSA CLARKE
Between
WYATT & WYATTClaimantsLEE MAVINDefendant___________________________ for THE CLAIMANTS did not appear and were not represented for THE DEFENDANT did not appear and was not represented________________________________JUDGMENT*** Approved ***If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd2 nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HPTel No: 020 7067 2900. DX: 410 LDEEmail: info@martenwalshcherer.comWeb: www.martenwalshcherer.comDate 2025-06-25
[1]This is the sentencing hearing of the Defendant Mr Lee Mavin, who has not attended here today. He has a history of non-attendance and very late applications for adjournment which I will go through briefly. This sentencing hearing is for findings of contempt of court made pursuant to a committal application brought by the claimants, Mr and Mrs Wyatt, in relation to a number of allegations of reliance by the Defendant on forged documents and false information about Breathing Space, which I will go through when I discuss the allegations.[2]On 9 April 2025 there was a final hearing on the committal application which the defendant did not attend. I issued a bench warrant for him to be arrested and brought before the court and adjourned the hearing to 16 April 2025. On 14 April 2025 the defendant presented himself for arrest at Aylesbury Police Station and was brought before the court. He agreed to attend the adjourned final committal hearing two days later and I warned him that the hearing would continue in his absence if he failed to attend and that he could be found in contempt of court and even sentenced in his absence in those circumstances, and I repeated advice which he had been given repeatedly before in hearings leading up to the final hearing, that he should seek legal advice and legal aid may be available, and released him from custody.[3]On the day of the final committal hearing, 16 April 2025, the defendant did attend court in the morning for an 11.30 hearing, but the court was delayed in starting because of previously listed matters. The Defendant left the court building a few minutes before the court started the hearing. The court continued with the hearing in his absence, for reasons which it gave at the time, and the court found the defendant to be in contempt of court in respect of each of seven allegations of contempt, being satisfied so that it was sure that:(i) on 13 February 2024 the Defendant provided a fabricated Breathing Space number MHBS0000278102 to the court and bailiffs to avoid eviction, and I note that caused discontinuance of the eviction scheduled for that day.(ii) on 23 April 2024 he entered into a Breathing Space with Fresh Start fraudulently (number BSS000236833), by failing to disclose that he had entered into a Breathing Space within the prior 12 months, that being Breathing Space number BSS0000140717.(iii) on 23 April 2024 he reused the same fraudulent Breathing Space number as set out in allegation (ii), to defend claim number L4QZ43F4 and to continue to occupy the property in which he was a tenant.(iv) on 16 May 2024 he provided a false Breathing Space number BSS0000295677 to Oxford County Court to halt eviction.(v) on 29 July 2024 he sent a forged gov.uk-style document and false Breathing Space number BSS0000256421 to mislead the court, resulting in the suspension of eviction.(vi) on 20 November 2024 he represented to the court that a Breathing Space application was being processed by Rethink and requested cancellation of eviction. Rethink later confirmed no such application existed.(vii) on 21 November 2024 he submitted forged Breathing Space documents to the court and bailiffs, including a backdated letter, and the Insolvency Service later confirmed that the number was invalid.[4]All of those allegations were found to be proven to the criminal standard. I was satisfied so that I was sure that each of these actions amounted to unlawful interference with the due administration of justice, or an attempt to do so. The Defendant succeeded in causing the discontinuance or cancellation or delay of four scheduled evictions.[5]The court adjourned the final committal hearing to 2 May 2025 for sentence and in the order sent to the defendant strongly advised him to seek legal representation and reminded him that he was entitled to legal aid.[6]On 1 May 2025, the day before the adjourned sentencing hearing, the defendant applied to adjourn it in order to obtain legal advice. I allowed that application on the papers and adjourned the sentencing hearing to 29 May 2025. Once again, the day before that adjourned sentencing hearing, on 28 May 2025, the defendant applied to adjourn it in order to obtain legal representation. He was informed by the court administration on my instruction that the application would be considered at the hearing on 29 May 2025. The defendant then emailed the court on the morning of 29 May to say he would not be attending as he was in Stoke Mandeville Hospital having had breathing difficulties, fallen and hit his head. He sent photographs which provided some support, showing an egg-shaped lump on his head and in his emails he informed the court he would forward documentary evidence of his attendance from the hospital when it was received. The court adjourned the sentencing hearing to 12 June 2025, ordering him to file at court the discharge summary relating to his attendance at hospital, and he complied with that order. The discharge summary notes a presenting complaint of a chest infection and shows that he was prescribed amoxicillin and asked to return following the course for review, and it does show that he was in the department until the evening of 29 May.[7]As I say, the sentencing hearing was adjourned to 12 June. On 8 June Mr Mavin made an application to adjourn, again to seek legal advice. That application was refused on the papers by me on 11 June 2025.[8]On 11 June 2025, later that day, the Defendant emailed the court after 3.30pm to say that he had been speaking to the Aylesbury Homeless Action Group who could arrange for him to be represented by a solicitor from Hillingdon Law, but not at such short notice, and he made a further application to adjourn to obtain legal advice. He provided a copy of an email from Graham Taylor-Paddick, Homelessness Prevention Worker, at Aylesbury Homeless, in which Mr Taylor-Paddick says that he had spoken to Hillingdon Law, who can assist the defendant with representation if the hearing was adjourned to a date after 19 June 2025. The court spoke to Mr Taylor-Paddick who confirmed those facts. Mr Mavin attended the adjourned sentencing hearing. The court impressed upon him the importance of engaging properly and swiftly with both Mr Taylor-Paddick and Hillingdon Law and sending all relevant orders to them. In fact, the court offered to send all relevant orders to Mr Taylor-Paddick if Mr Mavin authorised the court to do so, but he said that he could manage that. He was reminded that it was very important that he attended the adjourned hearing or he would be sentenced in his absence and that might be a sentence of immediate imprisonment. I adjourned the hearing until Wednesday 25 June at 11.30, and that is today’s date.[9]Today, 25 June 2025, there is no attendance by the Defendant or any legal representative. He has sent an email at 9.15 this morning saying he is currently in an ambulance being taken to Stoke Mandeville Hospital with severe breathing difficulties. No medical evidence or other evidence has been provided of that. He has also enclosed some text messages which he says show that he has been in discussions with a solicitor who emailed him at 16:45 on Monday, the day before yesterday, to say that he could not attend the sentencing hearing as it was too short notice and he could not find counsel available in time, and Mr Mavin says that he spoke to him first on Saturday 21 June. I do not understand why he was only in contact with a solicitor on 21 June when I adjourned this on 12 June 2025 and impressed upon him the importance of proper and speedy engagement with his solicitors and Aylesbury Homeless. I have been trying to sentence Mr Mavin since 2 May 2025 and he has been seeking adjournments of the proceedings to obtain legal representation since some time last year in these proceedings.[10]I note he went to hospital with alleged breathing difficulties on 29 May 2025 and was released with a prescription for a common antibiotic. The egg-shaped lump that he photographed on his forehead on that day is not referred to in the discharge report, and I note that in his psychiatric report the Defendant has a history of self-harming by hitting his head against a wall. It is not at all clear to me from the discharge report that he was sufficiently unwell on that day to merit failing to attend court – in fact it seems to me that he was not - and I have no evidence save his own self-report that he is too unwell to attend court today. I have little to no confidence that if I adjourn again he will attend at the next sentencing hearing and be legally represented. I have warned him on very many occasions that if he does not attend I will sentence him in his absence, and I now do so.[11]As I say, the court found the defendant to be in contempt of court in respect of each of the seven allegations of contempt. CPR 81.9(1) confirms that if a defendant is found in contempt the court may impose a period of imprisonment, and section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act states that that term shall not on any occasion exceed two years in the case of committal by a superior court and section 14(4A) of the Contempt of Court Act makes clear a County Court is to be regarded as a superior court. So that is a maximum of two years. The court also has the power to fine or seize assets.[12]In terms of the maximum of two years, that does not mean that the maximum is only reserved for the very worst sort of contempt, per McKendrick v The Financial Conduct Authority [2019] EWCA Civ 524 at paragraph 40: there is a relatively broad range of conduct which can fairly be regarded as falling within the most serious category and so justifying a term of imprisonment at or near the maximum. If there is a term of immediate imprisonment one half of any custodial term will be served in prison before automatic release, pursuant to section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.[13]The court in Longhurst Homes v Killen EWCA [2008] Civ 402 set out that there is no tariff for sentences for contempt of court and that each case will depend on its facts, and I have had particular thought to paragraph 14 of the judgment of Hughes LJ who sets out the two twin purposes of imprisonment for breach in that case of an injunction; the first is to punish (and in that case it was to punish principally for disobedience to the order) and the second is by securing future compliance. In this case there is no breach of a court order, and so the two principles in this case are to punish the defendant for his wrongdoing and to persuade the defendant not to interfere with the administration of justice in the future. There is a third principle of rehabilitation which really overlaps with or comes within the second.[14]Many of the relevant cases and guidelines relate to contempt by breach of a court order and in particular breach of anti-social behaviour orders and this contempt is of a different kind, being the deliberate abuse of the Breathing Space processes and provision of false information to the court in the context of Breathing Space processes to prevent the proper enforcement of a court order. I consider that the guidance of Rix LJ, with whom the other members of the court agreed, in Templeton Insurance v Thomas [2013] EWCA Civ 35 at paragraph 2 is of relevance, where he said:
“In my judgment, whereas it will always remain appropriate to consider in individual cases whether committal is necessary, and what is the shortest time necessary for such imprisonment, and whether a sentence of imprisonment can be suspended, or dispensed with altogether; nevertheless, it must now be accepted that the attack on the administration of justice which is made when a freezing order is breached usually merits an immediate sentence of imprisonment of some not insubstantial amount.”
[15]I am focusing there not on the freezing order being breached, which is not relevant in this case, but on the attack on the administration of justice.[16]So I move to consideration of culpability and harm. In relation to culpability, that must be assessed according to the Sentencing Council with reference to the defendant’s role, level of intention and/or premeditation and extent and sophistication of planning. In this case all of his acts were intentional and some included significant premeditation and sophistication in the production of forged documents purporting to be from government sources. Accordingly, I consider his culpability to be high and towards the top of the range. In relation to harm which was caused or intended to be caused, the Sentencing Council tells us that an assessment of harm should generally reflect the overall impact of the act upon victims, which may include individuals, the general public or the State. In this case I see several harms, first, to the claimants, his landlords who were delayed in enforcing their possession order by eviction for some period over nine months resulting in an increase in arrears of rent, as well as the costs associated with their various visits to court and the costs of these committal proceedings. Four of those contempts caused a cancellation of an eviction. Secondly, to the general public and the State in the attack on the administration of justice that each of his contempts represent, I consider that in relation to each contempt the harm caused is a serious harm falling short of the very highest level. If there were four possible levels I put those at Category 2 where 1 is the highest.[17]The starting point is therefore, in my judgment, a sentence of around 12 to 14 months these contempts which I consider altogether, being sentenced as they are on a single occasion. I am only entitled to impose a maximum sentence of two years on a single occasion. I take into account and give credit for the following: firstly, the defendant has not offered any explanation for his actions. As was his right, he did not provide any written response to the committal application or file any witness statements and of course he was not present at the committal hearing. That means I do not know what he or his counsel would say in mitigation if he were here. I am able to say that I have seen him several times. He has never displayed any remorse before me. He has told me about his mental health issues and he has provided the court with a document, being a report from the Aylesbury Crisis Response and Home Treatment Team dated 8 March 2024, setting out that he has mental health issues, including a diagnosis of PTSD in 2023 arising from sexual abuse in childhood, as well as heart problems and migraines. It notes that he has accessed trauma focussed therapy but manages his thoughts by binge drinking and self-harming, including banging his head, and he has had suicidal thoughts in the past but did not at the time of the report. It also notes his anxiety around debt.[18]His Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mental health issues do not to my mind explain his contempts and do not provide any significant mitigation for them although they do provide some and I will give him some credit for those vulnerabilities. He has previously been homeless and is also now living in a homeless hostel. I do not have any understanding of the background of the defendant in terms of whether he has breached court orders in the past, for example, and so I must assume that he has not. I am satisfied that it has passed the custody threshold because of the number of contempts and the attack on the administration of justice which each represents. Taking all of this into account, I find that the appropriate sentence is one of nine months’ imprisonment. That is, I consider, the shortest sentence of imprisonment commensurate with the seriousness of the contempts and by sentencing them together I am taking into account totality.[19]Finally, I must consider whether it is appropriate to suspend the sentence, and in this case I consider that the attack on the administration of justice that the contempts represent is such, having taken place as it did on multiple occasions over February to November 2024 with the effects that it has had on the claimant’s legitimate attempts to evict him following a possession order, as to merit an immediate sentence of imprisonment and so I sentence him to nine months in prison. If he was here I would explain that he would serve half and then be released on licence. He is not here, as I have said, and so I will ensure that a warrant is issued for his arrest and removal to prison.[20]That concludes the sentencing hearing. - - - - - - - - Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., 2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP. Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com