The article is available to read here

Marc Livingston

Catriona Virden

The post Marc Livingston and Catriona Virden published in the Law Society Gazette with their thoughts on Contempt in the Family Courts appeared first on James Solicitors.

The criminal defence team at James is deeply concerned by the recent government proposals of how to tackle the backlog of cases in the Crown Courts.

The Deputy Prime Minister Mr Bruce Lammy announced on 2 December 2025 new plans to scrap jury trials for cases which are likely to be dealt with a sentence of 3 years or less and for “particularly lengthy and technical fraud and financial offences”.

The plan would see the set up of new ‘swift courts’ where a single judge would hear trials and decide the fate of defendants alone. Increased sentencing powers would be afforded to magistrates who could impose custodial sentences of up to 18 months, with Mr Lammy indicating that this could be further increased to 2 years. The proposals are said to be a response and ‘solution’ to the backlog of cases in the Crown Courts which currently stands at almost 78,000 cases.

Our jury system has been in place since the 12^th century, and was inscribed as a right in the Magna Carta. It is difficult to understand how the government can now blame a system which has been in existence for 9 centuries as being a cause of the backlog.

James have been acting in criminal proceedings in the Crown Courts since 1992 and have witnessed first hand the evolving and repeated issues faced by the courts. We invite the government to consult directly with criminal legal practitioners who appear in the Crown Courts on a weekly if not daily basis and whose experiences should inform any attempts at reducing the backlog and ensuring that justice is served swiftly not only for victims of crimes but for those wrongly accused of crimes.

It is no secret that the criminal justice system is crumbling and those who work in this system have been advocating for years for the government to increase funding to target the real causes of the backlog. It is not juries who delay trials, but:

• The closing of court buildings. Between 2010 and 2019, over half of the courts in the country were closed down and sold. Harrow Crown Court, one of the busiest courts in London, has been closed since August 2023 as the building was literally falling apart, and now relies on court rooms in other Crown Courts and Magistrates’ Courts to hear its trials. The court is not due to reopen until April 2026.
• The repeated delays in prisons producing defendants at court, or simply failing to produce them at all. This in turn delays the start of trials.
• The failings and delays in the prosecution reviewing cases which should not be prosecuted because the evidential and/or public interests tests are not met. James have experience in successfully bringing proceedings to an end which should never have seen a day in court.
• The late or lack of evidential disclosure in proceedings which has led to countless trials being vacated because the defendant could not otherwise be guaranteed a fair trial.

Limiting the types of cases which can be tried by a jury risks backfiring and leading to new challenges and further delays. The government has not explained how it will be decided which cases will qualify to be heard by the new swift courts, merely stating that “cases with a likely sentence of three years or less” will be heard by a judge alone, which appears to be the only criteria that is proposed.

A “likely sentence” is subjective and lacks legal certainty, because sentencing guidelines are purposefully designed to account for varying degrees of culpability and harm caused which will in turn determine the sentence to be imposed.

The risk is that people of good character will be affected the most, whose reputation and career and status in life is put in jeopardy and could be ruined by a conviction, say, for a charge involving alleged dishonesty. It would appear that such a person would be even less likely to be entitled to a jury trial as their good character would no doubt count against them when determining their likely sentence and whether the three-year test is met.

It has not been explained whether or how a defendant will be able to challenge/appeal a decision that he or she is not entitled to a jury trial. There will inevitably be an increase in legal arguments, or appeals if permitted, and therefore extra court time will be incurred.

Similarly, the government’s statement on judge-only trials for “particularly lengthy and technical fraud and financial offences” is vague, incoherent and ill thought out. There is no mention whatsoever about what criteria would satisfy the relevant test. It is of real concern that such cases (as they can be generally defined) often go to the heart of government and no doubt many members of the judiciary will be dreading the pressures, implied or otherwise, of making a finding of facts in such cases. Jurisdictions such as Germany, where Judge-only trials occur for the majority of cases, often have the safeguard of a civilian/s acting on the judicial panel, no such proposal is included in the government’s draft bill.

Judges hearing trials will still have to hear all of the evidence, just like a jury would do, but unlike a jury, would have to spend time preparing reasons for their verdict. Currently, when a jury retire to deliberate on their verdict, judges are able to make progress by starting another trial. Under the new proposals, judges will presumably have to reach a verdict first before being able to start with a new case, which risks causing further delays.

If judge only trials are the answer, the government has failed to explain why the magistrates’ courts, where trials are decided either by a judge or bench of lay magistrates, have a backlog of over 310,000 cases.

The only answer to reduce the backlog is an increase in funding to allow for more courts to open, more judges to sit, and encourage more lawyers to join the profession, both for the defence and the prosecution.

The government misses the point when it says that “handing courts the power to decide where cases are heard no longer allowing criminals to game the system and torment their victims.” Mr Lammy should be well reminded of the presumption of innocence – a person awaiting trial is not synonymous with a criminal. It is not only victims who suffer from delayed trials, but those fighting for their innocence who risk losing their livelihood and reputation. Trial by jury has survived for virtually a millennium and should not be whittled away on the flimsiest of basis and a rational that does not bear scrutiny.

Bruce James

Viviane Bablin

The post THE REDUCTION OF JURY TRIALS IS UNFAIR AND WILL NOT SOLVE THE REAL CAUSES OF THE BACKLOG appeared first on James Solicitors.

Viviane Bablin, instructing Benjamin Waidhofer of Foundry Chambers, acted for XY in a private prosecution brought by high net worth individuals who each were said to have invested large sums into Bonds promoted by our client. At the material time, our client was the director and shareholder of companies which offered investment products and sold Bonds of a value of around £100 million to investors. The prosecution’s case was that following fraudulent representations made by our client, who had been made bankrupt, a number of those investors including the prosecutors did not receive interest payments, redemptions or repayment since January 2023, nor had the invested sums been returned upon requests being made.

The Defence were met with a series of repeated non-compliance by the prosecution, which culminated in an abuse of process application being made to the court, on the following grounds:

1. Our client could not receive a fair trial due to the prosecutors’ failure to conduct any meaningful investigation as part of the criminal proceedings, relying solely on material provided to the Commercial Court in civil proceedings;
2. A conflict of interest arose as the prosecution had been improperly brought by reason of an improper motive on the part of those carrying out prosecution litigation;
3. The prosecution was brought by a motive so unrelated to the proceedings amounting to an abuse;
4. Prosecution litigation was being undertaken by a person no longer regulated by any professional body who had no litigation rights, citing the recent High Court decision of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341.

No response was ever received from the prosecution to oppose our application. Instead, the prosecution served a purported notice of discontinuance shortly before the application was due to be heard at court.

At a hearing before HHJ sitting at Southwark Crown Court, the prosecution were unsuccessful in their request for the indictment to lie on the file. In the course of legal argument before the Judge, the prosecution were forced to concede our abuse of process application, agreeing that not all lines of enquiry had been conducted as part of their investigation. Upon the Judge equally accepting that an abuse of process was made out, the prosecution offered no evidence on all counts leading to Not Guilty verdicts being entered, concluding the proceedings against our client.

A special praise goes to counsel Benjamin Waidhofer who fought tirelessly alongside us for our client, leaving no stone unturned.

Viviane Bablin

The post James Solicitors’ client successfully defeats a private prosecution alleging a fraud of £100 million appeared first on James Solicitors.

On 11 November 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down a significant judgment in the case of Nadine Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2025] EWCA Civ 1397,  in Ms Buzzard-Quashie successfully appealed the refusal of the County Court at Central London to hold the Chief Constable in contempt, in spite of the force’s admitted non-compliance with a court order. Today’s judgment of Fraser LJ, with whom Coulson LJ and Asplin LJ agreed, is significant, not only because it is the first time in UK history that a Chief Constable of a UK police force has been held in Contempt of Court, but also because of the vindication it gives to Ms Buzzard Quashie who,  as recognised by the Court in the Judgment, has conducted herself with great perseverance and dignity throughout.

The case is remarkable, not only for the non-compliance of the force with the County Court’s order and the subsequent consequences, but also for the last-minute revelations in front of the Court of Appeal which revealed the even greater extent of the non-compliance for a period of nearly four years and lead the Court of Appeal to the conclusion that the Chief Constable was also in Contempt for false statements given to the Court of Appeal itself.

Background & the County Court Judgment

The matter originated from a Subject Access Request (SAR) made by Ms Buzzard Quashie to Northamptonshire Police following an alleged wrongful arrest in September 2021, during which she alleges she was assaulted and her property unlawfully seized and never returned. That wrongful arrest and matters consequential to it, are the subject of separate, ongoing litigation.

Northamptonshire Police failed to comply with the SAR and were subsequently ordered by Deputy District Judge Leong, sitting at Brentford County Court on 25 April 2023, to disclose any and all video footage taken on police cameras relevant to Ms Buzzard-Quashie’s arrest and detention within 28 days, or in the alternative provide a statement from an officer of rank no lower than Inspector to explain the absence of any such footage.

Northamptonshire Police again failed to comply, and therefore Ms Buzzard Quashie, acting as a litigant in person, brought contempt proceedings against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable defended the force on the basis that it had supplied all footage it still retained, and the explanatory statement given by a civilian data officer was sufficient – despite her not being an Officer with the rank of Inspector or above.  The application was heard by HHJ Genn in Central London County Court and on 11 April 2024, Judgment was handed down in which it was confirmed that Northamptonshire Police had not complied with the order. However, HHJ Genn declined to find the Chief Constable in Contempt, as she could not be sure that the Force had not supplied all the footage and she did not think they intended to breach the Order. She therefore dismissed the Application, and ordered Ms Buzzard-Quashie to pay the Chief Constable’s costs of the Application.

Ms Buzzard-Quashie appealed this Judgment on the basis, amongst other matters, that HHJ Genn had made an error of law in concluding that the conduct causing the breach had to be “wilful, deliberate or contumelious” in order to amount to Contempt and that the Chief Constable himself could not be held in Contempt of Court. On 14 January 2025, Lewison LJ granted permission to appeal on the basis that the appeal has a “real prospect of success”.

The Chief Constable’s Admissions

Despite initially resisting the Appeal on the basis the County Court’s decision was correct in law and fact, in the week leading up to the Appeal hearing, the Chief Constable conducted a data audit which revealed the existence of further footage that ought to have been disclosed pursuant to the County Court’s Order. This meant that numerous statements given on the Chief Constable’s behalf to both the County Court and the Court of Appeal were accordingly, false. Indeed, at Paragraph 40 of the Judgment, Fraser LJ lists at least 8 occasions in which untrue statements or information was given to the Court.

Consequently, the day before the Appeal hearing, the Chief Constable conceded the appeal and admitted he was in Contempt of Court. Although the Chief Constable’s concessions were sufficient for the Court to allow the appeal, with the Court, at Paragraph 42, referring the case he had advanced as being “wholly erroneous” , Fraser LJ, in giving the lead Judgment, made a number of important observations about the law in this field, including:

1. That no intent to breach an order is required for a finding of contempt;
2. The Chief Constable may be responsible for acts or omissions of others and can accordingly be held in Contempt;
3. The lack of a penal notice on the County Court’s Order was no barrier to a finding of Contempt;
4. In circumstances where the County Court had found the Chief Constable had breached the Order, it was wrong for them to order that Ms Buzzard-Quashie be liable for the Chief Constable’s costs.

James Solicitors will publish a further article explaining the conclusions on these legal points.

Ms Buzzard-Quashie’s Statement

Upon receiving the Judgment, Ms Buzzard-Quashie said the following:

““This case is not only about my right to access my own data. It is about accountability, truth, and ensuring that those in positions of power are not permitted to ignore the law with impunity. The Northamptonshire Police acted in an arrogant and high-handed manner by ignoring my requests for documents, as well as the findings of the Information Commissioner’s Office and a County Court order. It is astonishing that after four years I am still battling to get a frank, open and honest response about what they did to the evidence around my wrongful arrest and why.

 I am elated that justice has finally prevailed within the Lordships Judgement, not just for me, but for all of the other little people that have been silenced or obstructed by institutional power. I hope that this Judgment, and whatever sanction may follow for the Chief Constable, serve as an important demonstration that no authority is above the law.”

 Statement on behalf of Marc Livingston, Solicitor at James Solicitors LLP, who acted for Ms Buzzard-Quashie on the Appeal.

“Contempt of Court is an extremely serious matter. It is a matter of deep regret that throughout the history of this matter, Northamptonshire Police did not appear to have appreciated the position they were in and the duties they owed to the Court and my client. It is absolutely astonishing that the scale of their non-compliance only became clear in the two weeks before the Appeal Hearing, over 4 years after the incident, 2.5 years after DDJ’s Leong’s Order and nearly 18 months after the original County Court Contempt Hearing. The Court of Appeal decision vindicates Ms Buzzard Quashie taking the draconian steps she did and is a testament to her dignified persistence. I also want to pay tribute to my instructed counsel, Charlotte Elves and James Leonard KC of Outer Temple Chambers, who were both  rightly singled out for praise by the Lord Justices.

Notes

There will be a further hearing on 20 November to determine what sanction the Chief Constable should face. This hearing will be live streamed on the Court of Appeal’s YouTube Channel

Ms Nadine Buzzard Quashie was represented for this appeal by:

• James Leonard KC of Outer Temple Chambers
• Charlotte Elves of Outer Temple Chambers
• Marc Livingston of James Solicitors LLP

James Solicitors specialist Contempt of Court department provides comprehensive legal advice and representation in both the lower and higher courts. We help clients navigate this specialist area of law, ensuring their rights are protected. Over the law few years our team has built up considerable experience acting in some of the leading Contempt of Court cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal, and we are proud of our position as one of the go-to firms in London and throughout the country in this area.

Fore more information and to learn about some of our previous cases, please visit our Contempt page on our website here.

Marc Livingston

The post Janes’ Client Nadine Buzzard Quashie succeeds at Court of Appeal in a Landmark Decision in which the Court has held the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police to be in Contempt of Court appeared first on James Solicitors.

James Solicitors acted for Isa Giga in a prosecution under the Terrorism Act for his travel to Syria in 2015 to fight with the Jaysh Al Fath group. Giga is a British citizen who in 2024 returned voluntarily to the UK via the embassy in Istanbul, upon which he was arrested and charged. At the time of his travel, Jaysh Al Fath were a proscribed terrorist organisation.

While there have been a number of reported ‘Syria travel’ prosecutions in recent years, this case was unique because Jaysh Al Fath was a precursor to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group that became a major player in the Syrian civil war, fought against ISIS, and later led the offensive that overthrew the despotic Bashar al-Assad regime in December 2024. Subsequently, in October 2025, HTS was removed from the list of proscribed organisations by the UK Government. It now has diplomatic links with many jurisdictions, including our own, and the UK is actively engaged in working with it to bring into existence the inclusive democratic society in Syria that it has committed to.

Giga’s own words in an email sent to his family in 2015 were “I came to fight against Assad and against ISIS”.

However, terrorism legislation in the UK is politically neutral and a person who travels with the intention of joining a foreign military force engaged in a civil war – whether to remove a despot or not – commits an offence for which they are liable to punishment.

Giga was sentenced by the Recorder of London to a determinate sentence of 9 years, with one additional year on licence. This sentence is lighter and compares favourably to other Syria travel prosecutions, and reflects the Judge’s assessment of Giga’s motivations at the time. He was not found to be ‘dangerous’ for the purposes of the Sentencing Act because the Judge did not consider him to pose a significant risk to the public.

Alex Chapman represented Isa Giga, instructing Andrew Hall KC and Pippa Woodrow both of Doughty Street Chambers. He also instructed expert witnesses Dr Rim Turkmani, Director of the Syria Conflict Research Programme at LSE (who gave evidence at trial), and Rashad Ali, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and expert on deradicalisation and counter terror initiatives.

Press: BBC, Daily Mail, Mirror

Alex Chapman

The post R -v- Giga: The Syrian Civil War and the Terrorism Act appeared first on James Solicitors.

It was accepted by both parties and the court that this was the first time the LAA had sought such an Order in High Court Contempt Proceedings and therefore the first time such an Order had been made.

On 17 July 205, Mr Turk was granted permission by Zaccaroli LJ to appeal against that decision. His sole ground of appeal is that “The Judge erred in finding that “criminal proceedings before any court other than the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court” in Regulation 2 of the Recovery Regulations included Civil Contempt Proceedings and therefore erred in concluding that Recovery Regulations applied to these proceedings at all and that he had the power to make an RDCO”.

The Judge, in determining the Application for permission on the papers, has confirmed that:

1. The appeal raises an arguable point of law with a real prospect of success;
2. There is a compelling reason for an appeal given the wider importance of the decision, the fact that the issue had not been considered previously and it appears that no RDCO had previously been sought in the context of civil contempt proceedings.

This is a matter that practitioners in this field, and Defendants facing Contempt Proceedings will want to keep an eye on, given the effect the outcome may have on a Defendant’s liability to repay the costs of their representation.

In dealing with this novel Application for an RDCO, Mr Turk has been represented by Marc Livingston of James Solicitors, instructing James Counsell KC of Outer Temple Chambers at the High Court, Charlotte Elves of Outer Temple Chambers at the High Court and Court of Appeal and Roger Mallalieu KC of 4 New Square at the Court of Appeal.

For more information regarding representation for Contempt of Court, do not hesitate to contact our experienced team.

Marc Livingston

The post Janes’ client Selman Turk, granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against Recovery of Defence Costs Order imposed by the High Court in Contempt Proceedings appeared first on James Solicitors.

Viviane Bablin

The post We are pleased to announce that Viviane Bablin has joined James Solicitors appeared first on James Solicitors.

James Solicitors were delighted to be instructed in two recently published Contempt of Court Appeal judgments. Although arising in two very different types of cases (a Court of Appeal decision against a High Court Chancery Division Judge and a High Court Family Appeal against a Circuit Judge in the Family Court), both illustrate the safeguards that need to be afforded to alleged contemnors. These judgments reiterate the procedural protections to which alleged contemnors are entitled and demonstrate that the appeal courts will not hesitate in stepping in should they think that an alleged contemnor’s right to a fair trial and the associated protections flowing from contempt proceedings being deemed as ‘criminal’ for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been impugned.

Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 265

In this case, James Solicitors represented the Appellant, Jack Mason. While the Court of Appeal did not, in the main, accept the challenges to Rajah J’s factual findings in respect of Mr Mason’s conduct, Mr. Mason did achieve an important victory in respect of his first ground of appeal (which concerned the 4^th Count of Contempt found proved by Rajah J at trial).

This ground of appeal alleged that the Judge was wrong (and it constituted a serious procedural irregularity which made the decision unjust) to allow the Claimant to make wholesale last minute changes to the allegation of contempt after trial (indeed after the liability Judgment was handed down), so as to convert the allegation to the very different wording now contained in the Contempt Order, in circumstances where the prospect of any amendment was first suggested during closing submissions.

The allegation against Mr Mason was originally drafted as follows:

“On or about 23 March 2022, Jack Mason, in breach of paragraph 3 of the Jack Mason Freezing Order and in contempt of court, transferred his 50 ordinary shares in the capital of ICGL out of the jurisdiction to a BVI registered company called Investment Holdings (BVI) Limited.”

However, during cross-examination at trial, it transpired that according to Mr Mason’s evidence, the shares had not been transferred on 23 March 2022, but (if they had been moved at all), had been moved in October 2022. That being the case the Judge found that there had been no transfer of shares on 23 March 2022. Yet, in light of the changing position, he found that there had still been a dealing in Mr Mason’s shares (which amounted to a breach). He went on to say that:

“To the extent that is different from the terms of the contempt alleged (which alleges that Mr Mason transferred the shares on 23 March 2022) I do not consider it material and if necessary I will allow the contempt application to be amended. These differences have arisen because of the false impression which the Respondents have sought to give Barclays, which has unravelled during the trial.”

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the approach taken by the Judge for a number of reasons:

1. There was no discussion of what action might amount to a ‘dealing’;
2. There was no consideration given to the question of whether it would be proper to allow an amendment to the application notice after the close of evidence in a committal application;
3. The Claimant did not provide a formulated amendment for Mr Mason or his representatives to consider, even though there had been a break of 11 days between the close of evidence and closing submissions;
4. The Claimant’s original position had been that there was no need for an amendment, which does not tally with the fact that extensive amendments did eventually need to be made.

The Court of Appeal found that since the change of position from an allegation of an actual transfer to that of  a ‘purported’ transfer raised a real legal question about what amounts to a ‘dealing’ in an asset, the High Court ought to have granted an adjournment to allow Mr Mason to consider the new allegation. The fact that the change of position had come about due to Mr Mason’s own evidence, was not enough to overcome the procedural shortcomings and therefore, it was wrong in principle for:

1. The Judge to have made findings of fact that which went beyond the allegation contained in the Contempt Application Notice without requiring an amendment to be made;
2. The amended allegation to be formulated for the first time after the Judge had already made his findings (which went beyond what had been pleaded and argued);

That being the case, the Court concluded that “it was unfair for the allegation to be expanded “on the hoof” without adequate protection for Mr Mason.”

It is important that this clarification of the law and procedure articulated by the Court of Appeal does not get overlooked as the principle ensures that alleged contemnors cannot be subjected to last-minute shifting of the goal posts or procedural uncertainties, which would be inherently unfair. Such procedural errors can profoundly affect both the finding of contempt, and any sanctions imposed. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that alleged contemnors (whose liberty is at stake) are always aware of the precise case they need to meet.

For those that are interested, the full judgment can be accessed here.

VB v JG [2025] EWHC 840 (Fam)

In the second case, James Solicitors acted for the successful Appellant, VB, in overturning a case management decision by HHJ Willans sitting at West London Family Court, which had sought to limit the extent of the Defendant’s permitted cross-examination of the Claimant at the trial of the Claimant’s Application for Contempt of Court.

VB sought to appeal and the application for permission went in front of Mr Justice Hayden. Upon receiving the Judge’s initial reasons for listing an oral application for permission to appeal (Paragraphs 1-8 of the Judgment), the parties agreed a consent order overturning the Circuit Judge’s decision. However, upon receiving the agreed consent order and considering the recitals that we, on behalf of VB, had insisted were included, Hayden J decided that the application had actually raised such important points of principle, that it would be prudent to publish a Judgment so as to avoid other Courts falling into the same error.

Specifically, Hayden J made it clear that an alleged contemnor is entitled to cross-examine the Claimant/Applicant on all matters relevant to the legitimacy and proportionality of the committal application. He explains at Paragraph 11 “…on determining liability for contempt, I consider it is important that the Court recognises the inherent dangers in restricting the scope and ambit of cross-examination in advance of a hearing. Further, the alleged contemnor will always be entitled to cross-examine on any matters relevant to the legitimacy of the contempt application’s purpose and the proportionality of a committal order. This cross-examination should be without restriction.”

Furthermore, he went on to explain at Paragraph 12 that :“When determining liability for contempt, it will always be necessary for the Court to consider, amongst other things, whether the application is proportionate (i.e. to the gravity of the conduct alleged) and whether it is brought for legitimate aims. The Court, for the reasons I have discussed above, must be alert to committal applications pursued for illegitimate or improper collateral purposes.”

The Judge was clear that contempt proceedings frequently generate appeals predicated on procedural fairness (as can be seen in the Barclays case above) and therefore he felt it was in the public interest for this Judgment to be published in the hope it can be of general assistance.

This judgment underlines the Court’s duty to balance the gravity of the allegations against the fairness and necessity of committal proceedings. By guaranteeing the right to challenge the application’s purpose and proportionality, alleged Contemnors are afforded a robust mechanism in which they can alert the Court to what they consider to be misuse of contempt proceedings.

The judgment of Hayden J is worth reading in full and can be found here.

The Bigger Picture: Protecting the Rights of Alleged Contemnors

Taken together, these judgments highlight a growing trend in the appellate courts to safeguard the rights of alleged contemnors and prevent procedural unfairness from infecting contempt proceedings (where of course, the liberty of the Defendant is at stake). They reiterate that those facing allegations of Contempt must be afforded the necessary procedural protections, fairness, and the opportunity to contest the legitimacy of the allegations against them. While these protections may not always alter outcomes, they play a vital role in preserving the integrity of the process.

Conclusion

We are proud to have been instructed in both of these important matters, further demonstrating our expertise as one of the leading firms in this field.

Our head of Civil/Contempt Marc Livingston acted in both matters, instructing James Counsell KC and Michael Uberoi of Outer Temple Chambers in Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors and Janet Bazley KC of 1GC Family Law and Joshua Hitchens of Outer Temple Chambers in VB v JG.

If you have been threatened or served with a Contempt Application, or you think your opponent may have breached a Freezing Order/Injunction or otherwise sought to interfere with the course of justice, then do get in touch to see if we can assist. To find out more about the Contempt department please visit the contempt page on our website here.

Marc Livingston

The post Recent Developments – Protecting Defendants in Contempt of Court Proceedings appeared first on James Solicitors.

In a highly publicised case, the jury at Leeds Crown Court have acquitted our client James Stunt of all charges.

In one of the most high profile and largest trials ever held for alleged money laundering, in excess of £200 million, James Stunt was exonerated by the jury in both his first and second trials and cleared of the charges of forgery and money laundering in the two trials respectively

At the conclusion of the case the Judge made a Defendants Costs Order in our client’s favour.

Our client has bravely and with fortitude endured a long and traumatic ordeal, the allegations against him having first been raised as long ago as 2016. He has steadfastly proclaimed his innocence over the many years and he is extremely grateful to the jury for their vindication.

The team at Janes was headed by Fiona Gavriel who has worked tirelessly and with dedication on the case for some 6 years and she has been supported by Bruce James, Simon Barker and everyone in the firm.

James Solicitors instructed Trevor Burke KC of 3 Raymond Buildings and Hannah Thomas of 2 Hare Court to whom the client is also most grateful.

BBC

Fincrime Central

Independent

Fiona Gavriel

The post James Stunt Acquittal of £266 million Money Laundering appeared first on James Solicitors.

Partner at James Solicitors Robert Berg represented Mr Bhandari, assisted by Associate Alex Chapman.

Robert and Alex instructed Edward Fitzgerald KC of Doughty Street Chambers, leading James Stansfeld and Robbie Stern of Matrix Chambers.

The judgment is available here: Sanjay Bhandari v Government of India [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin)

Robert Berg

Alex Chapman

The post The High Court has quashed the extradition order of James Solicitors’ client Sanjay Bhandari to India on Article 3 and 6 grounds appeared first on James Solicitors.

Mr Darby had been sentenced by HHJ Keyser KC (sitting as a High Court Judge),  to 18 in months in prison for three contempts, arising out of  his failure to confirm that he owned and his failure disclose the location of approximately 100 Bitcoin which the Claimant alleged that he owned.

Whilst serving his sentence at HMP Parc in Bridgend, Mr Darby instructed Marc Livingston, head of Civil/Contempt at James Solicitors, to appeal. Mr Darby was also represented by counsel Helen Pugh of Outer Temple Chambers.

In what is a rare occurrence on 13 December 2024 the Court of Appeal granted Mr Daby bail pending the outcome of his appeal, the hearing of which took place on 16 January 2025.

In its Judgment, which can be read at Graham Darby v Zi Wang [2025] EWCA Civ 67, Dingemans LJ, with whom Falk LJ agreed, decided that the Court should  allow Mr Darby’s appeal and reduce his sentence to time served, in circumstances where Mr Darby had belatedly complied with the Court’s orders and apologised.

Mr Darby’s appeal  raised another significant matter which may be of wider relevance to those involved in Contempt Proceedings in the future. At Paragraph 21 of the Judgment, the Court of Appeal expressed the view that when someone whose liberty is at stake belatedly engages with the Court process, it may be appropriate to grant a short adjournment to ensure that the Defendant can avail themselves of legal representation. Unfortunately, that did not happen in this case.

As can be seen from the eventual outcome, allowing a Defendant to obtain legal advice (which can normally be obtained via non-means tested legal aid), even at a very late stage, can assist all parties and the Court in narrowing the issues and possibly even avoid the need for a custodial sentence.

For more information about any Contempt of Court matters, please contact our experienced team, who will be delighted to try and assist.

Marc Livingston

The post Janes’ Client, Graham Darby, Succeeds in Appeal against Sentence for Contempt of Court appeared first on James Solicitors.

The Law Commission sought out the meeting in recognition of our work in this field over the past five years, which has included instructions in a number of high profile and reported cases, that the Law Commission felt resulted in us being uniquely placed to contribute to the Consultation.

We discussed a number of crucial topics which are either addressed, or that we felt should be addressed, in the Consultation, including:

• Legal aid;
• The costs regime;
• The conflict between criminal procedure and civil procedure;
• The lack of early release provisions for contemnors committed to prison;
• The role of the Attorney General.

A summary of the Law Commission’s current proposals can be found here, and the Consultation is open for responses until 29 November 2024. James Solicitors will be completing a formal response which we will be delighted to share in due course.

In the meantime, should you have any questions about Contempt of Court then please do not hesitate to contact the team.

Bruce James

Marc Livingston

Catriona Virden

The post James Solicitors Delighted to Welcome the Law Commission to our Offices to Discuss Contempt of Court Consultation Paper appeared first on James Solicitors.