Note for Judicial Mendacity High Court London Geraint Davies former Labour MP v Thomas Moore

BETWEEN

SARAH BRANSON
[ and Geraint Richard Davies former New Labour MP for Croydon Central ]

On an application notice dated 11 April 2005, the first Claimant applied for an order for Committal against the Defendant for breach of an injunction. The proceedings were commenced on 11 February 2005, interim injunctions were made by Mr Justice Richards on 11 February 2005 and Mr Justice Sullivan on 21st February 2005. A final order was made by Mr Justice Eady on 10th May 2005, substantially in the same terms. On that occasion Counsel appeared on for the first and Second Claimants and the Defendant neither appeared or was represented. The Defendant did not appear and was not represented today.
The Claimant Ms Branson is a barrister and the second Claimant was formerly a Member of Parliament for whom she worked. It appears that the grievance the Defendant holds against her in some way arises out of her work in that capacity, not in her present capacity as a barrister.
The terms of the order or Mr Justice Eady are as follows:
[quoted full order of 10th May 2005 - page A32 - A37].
On 19th July the Claimant was permitted to serve notice of the hearing on 21st June 2005 by placing a copy under the door of the address of the Defendant. The order provided specifically that the Defendant was permitted as of right to vary or set aside the order. The Application notice is notice of an application for an order committing the Defendant in such terms as is just and appropriate as the Defendant is in breach and continues to breach the order of 24 February 2005. Full details of the breaches are set out in the document schedule of breaches attached hereto.
The schedule sets out the breaches of the injunction as alleged, and is a very lengthy document. The gist of the complaint's complaints can be understood from the terms of the order of Mr Justice Eady referring to the complaints of harassment that have been made.
The conduct of the Defendant appears to be extremely unreasonable and in order not to risk an occasion for repetition of the allegations which gave rise to the proceedings I shall not set out in my Judgment the contents of the document headed schedule of breaches. Instead I shall confine myself to saying I have read that document and I have read the documents referred to in it and I find those breaches clearly established. The Schedule is to be treated as a schedule to this Judgment but not published with it.
Unfortunately the injunction would not appear to have achieved its purpose at all. I have before me a substantial number of documents which are print outs from the various web sites and chat rooms, again for reasons already given I shall not set them out in the Judgment. A number of attempts at service of the proceedings have been made, the most recent evidence the witness statement of 20th July 2005 of Christine Greenwood. She states on that day she served the defendant with the order of 19th July 2005 together with notice of hearing dated 21st June 2005.
There are a wide variety of different documents of which complaints is made. By way of sample only, I have particularly in mind indicating the nature of material about which complaint is made and I find is in breach of the injunction; the print out of 8th March 2005 [B99] another dated 4th June 2005, which shows that the injunction has not achieved its purpose and the 3rd being the print out of the product of a Google search dated 21st March 2005.
Ms Phillimore, who appears for Ms Branson has drawn to my attention a fax which contains a response by the Defendant to these proceedings. At first, there is a document headed application notice dated 25th July 2005 signed by the Defendant. As I understand it, it has not been issued but it reads [reads out entirety of Defendant's application notice dated 25th July, Witness statement dated 25th July and letter from Miles and Partners 19th July 2005].
The reference to Ms Branson's address being in the public telephone directory and the Court being misled is no answer to the allegation that the injunction is breached but, in any event, publication of an address can amount to harassment regardless of the fact that it is already in the public domain.
The Defendant has provided no basis for challenging the order of Mr Justice Eady. The letter dated 19th July 2005, the Defendant's application notice and witness statement all recognize the principal that has been recently stated Berry Trade Ltd v Moussavi [2002] 1WLR 1910. Summarised in the current addition of the White Book at sc52.1.1
"for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 an application to commit for contempt, for an alleged breach of a world wide search and seizure order, will constitute criminal proceedings for the purposes of the convention. To derive a Defendant of his right to apply for public funding for the purposes of obtaining legal representation will contravene his right under Article 6(1) and 6(3) c of the Convention. A proper opportunity to exercise that right should outweigh other considerations, such as the convenience of other parties or the use of the court's resources."
It is clear from the letter and from the witness statement that the Defendant has had the opportunity and has understood the opportunity he has had to obtain legal advice and representation. There is no evidence he made any attempts to obtain such advice or representation. The suggestion in the application notice that the obligation to obtain such representation for him rests on Ms Branson is obviously without foundation.
Therefore for practical purposes the situation which Mr Moore seeks in paras 1,2 and 3 of his application notice of 25th July 2005 has been achieved. I have read his documents. There is no question of the Claimants having to name a solicitor or serving notice on a solicitor of meeting any fees. No answer of any substance at all has been made to this application. The merits have not been addressed. There is no purpose of further delaying these much delayed proceedings by transferring to Oldham or anywhere else. The time has come for this matter to be dealt with.
The publications concerning Ms Branson are in my judgment ones that are to be taken very seriously. She has now been the subject of sustained and very offensive and harmful series of publications, made all the worse by the fact that in so many instances the publications are made in the form of statements attributed falsely to herself as author. The objective of the proceedings before me today is to ensure compliance with the injunction already in place. While I have not seen the Defendant I have read a substantial amount of what he has published in the form of postings on the Internet and in chat rooms. I have also seen correspondence in the form of the faxed application and witness statement I have just cited in full.
There is, it is suggested by Ms Phillimore, much need for the Defendant to receive some form of psychiatric or other assessment. There is no power available to me to exercise today to ensure that. The power I have is to make such order as is necessary and proportionate to ensure compliance with the order made. This case seems to me, given its very long history and ample warnings and the seriousness of what he publishes to be a case where he should be committed to custody.
I express hope that when this order is executed, and he is detained, he may be the subject of some assessment, the result of which may assist Mr Moore with his release and may assist the Judge if any to hear his application to consider what, if any, further steps are appropriate.
In the meantime, it is for me to consider what remedies apply today. Given the matters already referred to I sentence the Defendant to six weeks in prison.