PATTINSON v WINSOR [2026] EWHC 1324 (KB)
[1]> MR JUSTICE LINDEN: This is the adjourned hearing of the claimant's application, dated 5 June 2025, to activate a suspended committal order which I made on 4 November 2024. The basis for the application is an allegation that the defendant has committed no fewer than 25 further breaches of the injunction to which he is subject. The claimant also urges on me that I should impose an additional immediate custodial sentence on the basis that these breaches are, themselves, in contempt of court.[2]There is a long history in this litigation, going back to February 2024, of difficulties in securing the attendance of the defendant in person - indeed, he has not attended a single hearing in person - and of the court seeking to extract from him medical evidence to support his claim that he is unable to come to London to attend hearings. Another feature of this litigation is that the defendant has repeatedly sought adjournments of the proceedings on the basis that he has not got legal representation. That history continued up to and including a hearing on 18 December 2025 which was listed to deal with the claimant's application, and on that occasion I very reluctantly adjourned the application until today's date.[3]In the interim, there has been a series of applications by the defendant to this court and to the Court of Appeal in which, amongst other things, he has threatened suicide if this hearing was not adjourned or stayed. Those threats were assessed by a Master in the Court of Appeal as indicating a high risk of suicide and, specifically, the defendant stated in a number of communications with the Court of Appeal and this court, that he would commit suicide yesterday or this morning if his applications were refused. The final communication with the defendant from the court was an order of Edis LJ refusing permission to appeal against my orders of 18 December 2025, 5 January and 16 January 2026. In summary, in these orders I declined to postpone today's hearing and indicated to him that he should show correspondence with the court and orders of the court to his GP with a view to securing medical evidence if he maintained that he was unable to attend in person.[4]The situation this morning, nothing further having been heard since Edis LJ's order by either the King's Bench Division or the Court of Appeal (I made inquiries about that), is that the defendant has not attended. In these circumstances, Mr Samuels, having taken instructions, submitted, albeit he characterised his submission as "tentative", that I should proceed in the absence of the defendant. To be fair to Mr Samuels, he did so without having seen the correspondence or, at least, all of the correspondence between the defendant and the court, in which the threat of suicide is made. But he did so with awareness, because I told him, of the fact that the defendant has been assessed as high risk in relation to suicide.[5]Mr Samuels accepted that it would only be in exceptional circumstances that I would proceed in the absence of the defendant and, in particular, in circumstances where I was sure that he had chosen to absent himself from the proceedings and not to participate in them. Mr Samuels, perfectly fairly, pointed out that at the last hearing, on 18 December, and, indeed, in the order which I made on 18 December, the need for medical evidence if the defendant was not to attend in person, was emphasised to him. That was not the first time that this had been emphasised: the point had been made repeatedly, going back to February 2024. Mr Samuels submitted that the defendant is not an unsophisticated individual, and that he was well capable of obtaining medical evidence, or doing what I suggested in terms of showing the correspondence and the orders of the court to his GP with a view to eliciting a letter to explain why, if this was the case, he was not able to attend in person.[6]Secondly, Mr Samuels drew attention to the fact that this is not the first time that the defendant has threatened, or alluded to, suicide as a means of securing what he wants. My attention was drawn to emails dated 2 July and 1 August 2025, where references of this sort were made, and I was told on instructions that other threats of suicide had been made by the defendant in the context of his relationship with his mother: that he would threaten her with suicide if she did not change her Will. I was also told, in fairness, that the defendant was admitted to a secure mental facility in 2012 and again four or five years ago, albeit he was discharged after one or two days. I was told that the defendant had been in recent contact with members of then claimant's wife's family, and had made no reference to these threats.[7]Thirdly, Mr Samuels pointed out that there had been several adjournments in this case, which goes back to February 2024, and he submitted that it would be unjust to adjourn the matter again. In the course of his submissions, I asked Mr Samuels whether his client's position was adopted knowing of the alternative possibility, which was to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant with a view to him being brought before the court for a hearing next week. Mr Samuels told me that his client was aware of this, and that his instructions were to argue that I should go ahead nonetheless, albeit he was not making the submission with his usual vigour. Mr Samuels also confirmed that he is able to attend a hearing on behalf of his client on Tuesday or Wednesday next week.[8]I see the force of the points made on behalf of the claimant, but it seems to me that I should proceed with caution. Such medical evidence as I have from the defendant states that in 2020 and 2022 he saw his GP and was reporting suicidal thoughts. More recently, as I have mentioned, he has made threats of suicide and has said in specific terms how and when those threats would be carried out. The information he gave to the Court of Appeal, albeit that information may not be the full picture, has led a Master in the Court of Appeal to assess him as being at high risk of suicide.[9]It is a practical course for the claimant to be arrested and brought to court, so that the hearing can take place with him in person, and for that to take place next week. Balancing the justice of the case, I have concluded that I will take that course. It is already the position, as I understand it, that the West Mercia Police have been notified of the reported threat of suicide, and I am currently taking steps to ensure, as best I can, that a welfare check is carried out in the course of today, if it has not already been. A report will then be prepared by the police as to what the position is and, subject to the contents of that report, I will issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant requiring him to be brought before the court on Tuesday or Wednesday next week, to answer the claimant's application of 5 June.[10]In the light of the claimant's intervention at the last hearing, and his overall scepticism of the process which has been undertaken in relation to the defendant in these proceedings, and of course his scepticism about the threats of suicide which the defendant has made, I say this. The warrant will be issued, unless there is compelling evidence that I should do otherwise. However, for obvious reasons, I need to proceed with caution. It would not be appropriate if there has, for example, been a serious attempt at suicide, for me to be requiring the police to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court to answer quasi criminal charges on Tuesday. I will consider the position as I understand it to be in the course of today, and I will then take appropriate steps.[11]So, for all of these reasons, I am not going to proceed today. I will reserve the question of costs.
Cited in 1 later judgment