An interesting comparison is to be made between those who seek to protest both by blocking roads, and using social media to allegedly cause trespass and harassment, and those that simply block roads, allegedly causing trespass and nuisance as an act of protest.

In MBR case judgment is attached below, the Court concluded that there should be the bare minimum done in the interim to enable protest. A prohibition on trespass, and a zonal order on the space directly in front of the Claimants property. Even that bare minimum had a considerable effect on the protest, but was far removed from the injunction granted in the National  Highways case, including against persons unknown. 

The case also noted the procedural differences where there is an allegation of harassment that relates to publication, and the real need to focus a claim. 

The National Highways case has received recent publicity, because of the committal proceedings. The underlying order against named and unknown parties provided provided that:

"2.1 Blocking, endangering, slowing down, preventing, or obstructing the free flow of traffic onto or along or off the M25 for the purposes of protesting.
2.2 Causing damage to the surface of or to any apparatus on or around the M25 including but not limited to painting, damaging by fire, or affixing any item or structure thereto.
2.3 Affixing themselves ("locking on") to any other person or object on the M25.
2.4 Erecting any structure on the M25.
2.5 Tunnelling in the vicinity of the M25.
2.6 Entering onto the M25 unless in a motor vehicle.
2.7 Abandoning any vehicle or item on the M25 with the intention of causing an obstruction.
2.8 Refusing to leave the area of the M25 when asked to do so by a police constable, National Highways Traffic Officer or High Court Enforcement Officer.
2.9 Causing, assisting or encouraging any other person to do any act prohibited by paragraphs 2.1-2.8 above.
2.10 Continuing any act prohibited by paragraphs 2.1-2.9 above."

Interesting a number of the civil prohibitions were also criminal in nature, it is unclear how if there were no criminal prosecution and party could be allowed to prosecute what is otherwise a criminal matter. 

Oddly term 2.6 seems to suggest that persons are now excluded from riding on a motorbike on the M25, but could drive a milk cart (prohibited by law normally on a motorway), as the order permits it. The terms of the prohibition all seem very odd, and things that are already prohibited by the law.  There may well be definitions that get around these issues. 

However they are on any reading and especially as they are against persons unknown wide ranging and rather specific, for interim relief. Why the same effect could not have been achieved by zonal orders prohibiting protest on the M25 as was done in the MBR case. 

The committal case also made clear that a Defendant must choose to access legal aid,  and that once they were aware of it, that was all that really had to be done. There will be cases in the future, it is clear that will show that in some areas finding a solicitor to act under legal aid, is often an impossible obstacle to accessing legal aid. 

The Supreme Court have brought to an end, a long running committal cases, between Nobu Su, and Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited, heard before the High Court between the issue of the application on the  27 March 2020 and the refusal of permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the 29 October 2021. 

The case first came before the Court on the 3 April 2021, before Mr Justice Foxton, to deal with expedition, and other matters 3 April 2020 . The Committal application continued, with an agreed amendment in May 2020, bring in further allegations. 

Mr Su, declared himself bankrupt, and the process of collection of his debts started. 

In October 2020, Mr Su was back before the Court in relation to the underlying civil case. Mrs Justice Cockrill described "Mr Su's name will be familiar to any student of modern commercial litigation. He is a gentleman who has gone by various names over the years, including Nobu Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto. Over the past 10 years Mr Su has been embroiled in a substantial number of civil court proceedings in England and Wales and elsewhere." That judgement described the long and embattled history between Mr Su and the Claimants 30 October 2020

In December 2020, a further amendment, the second was sought. The matter came before Mr Justice Calver, and permission was granted to add the further allegations. 11 December 2020

On the 1 April 2021 on review Deputy ICC Judge Passfield determined that Mr Su was within the Jurisdiction such that he could claim to be bankrupt. 

In April 2021, it came before Sir Michael Burton, who dealt with issues relating to continuation of the passporting orders, in light of Mr Su, then being found to be bankrupt. 15 April 2021

In June 2021 Mr Su admitted to the contempts, and sought that he was sentenced at the further hearing of the matter. 

In July 2021 Mrs Justice Bacon determined that Mr Su was not within the jurisdiction for the purpose of bankruptcy, and so determined that his bankruptcy would be annulled. 1 July 2021

on the 7 July 2021, Mr Su having admitted the contempt's, came back before Sir Michael Burton, for the third time to be sentenced. On this occasion Sir Michael determined that the proper sentence for Mr Su, was the maximum sentence of two years of imprisonment, despite mitigation and a guilty plea. 7 July 2021

That sentence was widely reported in the Daily Mail and other newspapers

Mr Su appealed to the Court of Appeal on the 8 September 2021, for an appeal before Lady Justice Carr and Lord Justice Arnold, that appeal upheld the sentence, on the basis that it was an exceptional case, and as such despite there being mitigation, a maximum sentence could still be applied. Permission to appeal was refused but it was certified as a point of public importance. 15 September 2021

On the 29 October 2021, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal bring to an end the litigation in respect to committal. There will no doubt be considerable on going issues relating to the debt and other matters. 

Scott Moncrieff & Associates, instructing Adam Tear as Advocate, recently represented Preston Haskell in both the High Court  and Court of Appeal in respect to the appeal against the finding that Mr Haskell had wilfully not paid his former wife monies owed to her. 

Before the Honourable Mr Justice Moor, on the 17 May 2021 Mr Haskell successfully resisted numerous allegations that he had not paid money that was said to be owing to his wife. He was however found to owe £50,000, that he had, had and had not paid to his wife. As such he was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment. That decision was upheld on appeal. 

The High Court case, was an interesting demonstration, as to why these cases should be approached with caution, prepared properly and supported by a properly prepared witness. The Claimant in the matter, may now have lost her opportunity to enforce by way of the Debtors Act, in respect to the majority of the payments that have so far fallen. 

The case was widely reported in the Times and the Daily Mail

The long standing rule that debt cannot be enforced by imprisonment, save for the limited circumstances contained within the Debtors Act 1869 has been refined. In Hussain v Vaswani and others [2020] EWCA 1216 Civ, the Court of Appeal endorsed the judgement of his Honour Judge Lethem, in the Central London County Court, and found that an ordinary debt could, if an undertaking was given to the Court be enforced for failure to pay the debt by way of imprisonment. 

The Court of Appeal found at paragraph 46 that " As Bates v Bates makes clear, section 4 must be purposively construed. As Cotton LJ stated, its purpose is to prevent imprisonment for non-payment of ordinary debts. Thus, as the authorities make clear, it does not apply to orders or undertakings requiring the provision of security, whether way of payment into court or an appropriate bank account. I shall assume for present purposes that Luxmoore J was correct to decide in Cotton v Heyl that section 4 applies to an undertaking to pay money to a party which is otherwise precisely equivalent to an order to pay money to that party. I agree with Zacaroli J in Discovery v Jirehouse, however, that it is necessary not only to construe the undertaking, but also to take into account the context in which, and the purpose for which, it was given. In the present case, as counsel for the Vaswanis pointed out, Mr Hussain gave the undertakings in order first to establish a change of circumstances which would open the door to a reconsideration of the refusal of a stay and secondly to persuade the court to exercise its discretion in his favour by granting a stay. Thus the undertakings were the price Mr Hussain paid in order to obtain court orders in his favour and adverse to the Vaswanis. In such circumstances it is vital that the court should be able properly to enforce undertakings given to it. Mr Hussain did not comply with his undertakings. True it is that the non-compliance manifested itself in a failure to pay money to the Vaswanis, but in the circumstances that was not a failure to pay an ordinary debt. On the contrary, it was a failure to honour extra obligations to the court which Mr Hussain assumed, over and above the ordinary debts he owed, for the purposes of obtaining advantages in the proceedings."

This will be especially prevalent when possession claims restart. Individuals will be at real risk of giving undertakings to pay the backdated rent owed, in order to avoid possession claims, and fall into the position that they can be then imprisoned, until they pay that debt. 

The issue is heading to the Supreme Court to consider permission, after the Court of Appeal granted a certificate that the issues contained within the judgement were matter of wider public importance. 

Contempt is the sledge hammer by which the Court, enforces its will upon those before it, or within it. It is draconian, and on occasions unfair, but it is a necessary tool, by which the Court, can ensure that its orders are obeyed. 

Not all breaches of an order are contemptible, fail to pay your bills, get a County Court Judgement against you, requiring to pay in 21 days, if you don't pay you will not be in contempt. You won't generally even fall within the Debtors Act 1869, which abolishes imprisonment generally for debt, but does allow it in certain circumstances. 

Safe Guards
Every person who is accused of contempt of court, is entitled to free representation, on a non means, non merits basis.  As such even Prince Charles if accused of contempt, could pop along to his local high street firm, and obtain free representation from any firm in the country. 

A common misconception particularly by civil firms is that they must have a criminal contract. That misconception is clearly not correct and one that must be remedied. Any firm whether it has a legal aid contract or not, and or whether it is civil or criminal, makes no difference, legal aid is available for all, no matter what. The guidance is relatively clear in the LAA guidance.

Once a party has representation and an advocate of their choice, they have further rights. The right to silence, the right to reasonable time for preparation of their case, the right to know the case against them, and most importantly the right to have the case against them proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 

The Law
CPR 81, and its Practice Direction, are vital essential check lists of what will or will not make a fair trial. Specialist litigators and advocates should also have access to the leading text books such as ​Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt or ​Borrie and Lowe: The Law of Contempt which offer insight into more specialist parts of the area of law. 

The Debtors Act 1869, provides the general accomplishment of prison for debt, with exceptions contained within Section 4, which provides for up to a year imprisonment if you fall within. Section 5, reserves the right to imprison for up to six weeks, for certain debts normally related to family matters. It is important to note that the six weeks does not extinguish the debt, and indeed, you can be imprisoned again, and again until you pay the debt. 

The law also provides that not all orders to pay, or transfer money falls within the Debtors Act. For instances an order to pay money into Court does not provide for the protection within the Debtors Act. Only monies which are ordinary debts, and or paid to the Claimant fall within the protection. 

If accused of a contempt, as soon as you receive the papers, contact a litigator, ask for legal aid, and get them the papers, so they can apply. Within 24 hours they should be able to obtain funding, and go on record for you with the Court. Often the first attendance will be to make arrangements for the final hearing. If found guilty or an admission is made, the case will normally be adjourned in order to obtain the necessary mitigation statements in the matter. 

Do not delay seeking a lawyer to assist you, that each day you wait is a reduction in the discount given to you, should you wish to admit the offending behaviour. For more guidance please see the pages on contempt. 

In an update to the CPR, dealing with housing possession there has been guidance given as to how claims will be brought back after the end of the stay period. Claims will not have their stay automatically lifted and parties will need to issue a written notice (reactivation). 

Unless the Court orders otherwise this will apply to all possession claims stayed under the previous direction. 

The written notice, must be served on all parties, and must contain three things. It must set out, what the party wants done, the effects, of the pandemic if known upon the defendant and dependants, and be accompanied with the last two years of rent statements if a case of rent arrears unless on appeal. 

In respect to new claims, claimants will be required to comply with the pre-action protocol as appropriate, but additionally file a notice setting out any known effects upon the Defendant and or dependants of the pandemic.

The 123 update can be found here, see the housing page for information on housing matters, which is here

In a rare Divisional Court decision in respect to the exercises of the power to activate a sentence in default, on the 6 May 2020, Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice William Davis, gave judgment. The grounds of review were two fold, firstly that the Claimant had been denied representation, and secondly that even if he did have a fair trial there was a failure to apply anxious scrutiny to the decision to activate the sentence. 

​The Judges disagreed on both points. The law was generally agreed, and this case turns on its facts. 

Second Edition 6th May 2020 

Guidance from the Resident Judges of London and the South East with the authority of the Presiding Judges

This document is intended to give guidance on how the Resident Judges expect to approach listing of cases in the immediate future.  Local adaptions may be necessary. Changes will be required as the situation develops and in the light of further directions from the Lord Chief Justice.  

ATTENDANCE AT HEARINGS
1. All hearings by video or audio links are subject to a judge making live link directions. Any party wishing to make representations against the making of video or audio link directions should email submissions to the court AND post a widely shared comment on DCS by 10am on the day before the hearing.
2. Where a party has an application (for instance re listing a case or for live link directions) that requires judicial involvement it is helpful if it is made by email with “for the attention of the duty judge” in the subject line AND posted as a widely shared comment on DCS.
3. For most hearings, advocates will be expected to appear by video or audio link (as specified by the court and the court clerk will record attendance on Xhibit). Advocates attending by video link should wear business attire (not robes). Advocates attending by video must use a device that allows them to see all participants. A mobile device that does not does not comply with the law.
4. Defendants in custody will attend by video link when required.
5. Defendants on bail will not be required to attend in person (unless specifically ordered to attend) but where a defendant is entitled to attend:  
a. If the court is an open court the defendant may choose to attend the hearing in person;
b. If the court is a suspended or staffed court the defendant may choose to attend the open court at which the hearing may be observed, or by remote link following the procedure in paragraph 7b. below.
c. A defendant may only attend remotely if application has been made in advance and a judge has made a live link direction having been satisfied that the proposed live link is “appropriate” (CrimPD I 3N.4)
6. Unless otherwise directed interpreters must use the same platform as the other participants (ie. Skype for Business for SfB hearings; telephone for telephone hearings; CVP for CVP hearings)
7. Press and public may attend open courts to observe proceedings at that court or relayed from suspended or staffed courts. It will be for an individual to assess whether their attendance in person at a hearing is in accordance with the Government’s advice about necessary activities and social distancing.  
a. Press or other media may apply by email to the court for a link to live link hearings and such requests will ordinarily be granted. 
b. Any other person wishing to observe may only attend remotely if application has been made in advance and a judge has made a live link direction having been satisfied that the proposed live link is “appropriate” (CrimPR 3.2(4); CrimPD I 3N.4)
8. Any person attending in person may, subject to issues of security, identity or audibility wear a suitable mask.  
9. An advocate attending in person a hearing where others are attending by SfB/CVP must bring a suitable device so as to be able to join the SfB/CVP room so as to be visible to other participants.
10. Contempt of Court: the statutory prohibition on recording/broadcasting any court-hearing applies to any remote hearing and breach amounts to a criminal offence and CrimPD I 3N.16 provides:
Where a live link is used, the immediate vicinity of the device by which a person attends becomes, temporarily, part of the courtroom for the purposes of that person’s participation. That person, and any advocate or legal representative, custodian, court officer, intermediary or other companion, whether immediately visible to the court or not, becomes a participant for the purposes of CrimPR 1.2(2) and is subject to the court’s jurisdiction to regulate behaviour in the courtroom. The substance and effect of this direction must be drawn to the attention of all such participants.

LISTINGS
11. No case will be adjourned generally. There will always be a date for FCMH or a trial listing.
12. Where a judge is able to dispense with the attendance of the parties at a hearing because, in the opinion of the judge, the parties have provided adequate information in advance the matter will remain listed as a hearing (no parties).
13. In DCS cases Judges will place a widely shared comment so that there is clarity about each case readily accessible to the parties as well as any formal order. Equivalent arrangements will apply to non-DCS cases.

JURY TRIALS
14. Plans are being developed to restart jury trials as soon as appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure that it is safe to do so.  It is expected that this will start at a small number of Crown Courts which are most suitable because of their size or design and following assessment by Public Health England.  This remains under review and parties currently instructed in pending trials should, so far as is reasonably practicable, continue actively to prepare for trial. 
15. Vacated trials will be listed for FCMH (and CTL extension where an application is made) unless the court determines that a FCMH is not required. 
16. Parties should expect that at a FCMH and/or CTL hearing the court will want to review the case generally to consider with the parties whether a trial remains necessary or whether the case can be resolved in some other way.
17. Aside from such FCMHs if the parties consider that there would be a benefit in a FCMH (for example to seek a Goodyear direction or because sufficient pleas would now be acceptable or some other early resolution could be achieved) the parties should seek a direction for such a listing with submissions about the need or otherwise for the attendance of the defendant (such application should be by email with “for the attention of the duty judge” in the subject line  AND by a widely shared comment on DCS).  Advance notice (48 hours) is required for Goodyear directions.

CTL APPLICATIONS
18. Court users are referred to the ‘Coronavirus Crisis Protocol for the effective handling of Custody Time Limit cases in the Magistrates’ and the Crown Court, between the Senior Presiding Judge (SPJ), HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the Crown Prosecution Service’. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Coronavirus-Protocol-for-CTL-cases-signed-27032020.pdf8.2 
19. The court may make a decision to extend CTLs at a hearing in public or in private. (CrimPR 14.2(2)).
20. Unopposed applications: There being no requirement for the parties to attend an unopposed CTL extension application hearing for the duration of the current emergency the court will, if requested, deal with an unopposed CTL extension application at a hearing in the absence of the parties and the defendant on receipt of the prosecution application and notice from the defence that the defendant is aware of his right to make representations and the application is unopposed (such notice should be by email with “for the attention of the duty judge” in the subject line  AND by a widely shared comment on DCS).
21. Opposed applications: Applications to extend the CTL which are opposed will be dealt with in the usual way, with the defendant attending by video link. The court shall not proceed in the absence of the defendant unless satisfied that the defendant has waived the right to attend or that it would be just to proceed even though the defendant is absent (CrimPR 14.2(1)(c)).
PTPH
22. Advocates are expected to comply with their duty of direct engagement (CrimPR 3.3); and to have considered the prospects of resolving the case and, unless guilty pleas are expected, to have ensured that the PTPH form is completed before the day of the hearing.
23. At some SE Circuit courts listed in Appendix A arrangements have been put in place (to apply to new PTPHs from 11th May 2020) so that, where NG pleas are indicated and the parties provide adequate information in advance, the judge may dispense with the attendance of the advocates and defendant at the listed hearing.  Appendix A sets out the process for this. This process has been approved as effective in securing remuneration for advocates by the Legal Aid Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service.  
24. Otherwise PTPHs will proceed in the usual way either at the first hearing or an adjourned hearing (to be determined by the court) with advocates attending remotely.  
25. D in Custody: In the absence of representations why this would not be appropriate the defendant will be required to attend by video link and the defendant will be arraigned, and directions given.
26. D on bail: (see bail applications below). The defendant will not be required to attend but may choose to do so (see para 5) If present the defendant will be expected to enter a plea. If not present the defence advocate will be expected to provide a firm indication as to the anticipated plea and directions will be given.
27. At a “not guilty” PTPH the judge will either identify a trial listing or direct a FCMH and give as full PTPH directions as can be given.
28. If the defendant pleads guilty or it is indicated that the defendant, if present, would plead guilty, the court will consider, in the case of a defendant who is present, whether to sentence straightaway, or give directions for sentencing on a subsequent occasion.

SENTENCES or LISTING FOR CHANGE OF PLEA
29. D in custody: These sentences to proceed if ready.  Advocates may appear in person or remotely by video link, and the defendant will ordinarily be sentenced over the PVL unless the defence identify reasons why a live link (video) direction should not be made.
30. Where a defendant is under 18 the court will consider whether, exceptionally, a live link (video) direction is appropriate to the case and the defendant’s legal representatives and YOT worker must make representations in advance of the hearing if they consider that it would not be appropriate. Arrangements for the participation of the YOT worker must be made (CrimPD I 3N13-15)
31. D on bail: The court will determine when to list for sentence and give directions including as to the manner in which the defendant shall appear.  Parties should make any relevant representations, including as to the manner of appearance or any need for reports by email AND widely shared comment on the DCS.

BAIL APPLICATIONS – APPEALS AGAINST GRANT OF BAIL – 48 HOUR BAIL HEARINGS
32. D in Custody: To be listed for hearing with advocates having opportunity to attend remotely by video link.  If the defendant is required, that is to be by video link if practicable. 

BAIL VARIATIONS
33. D already on Bail: There will be a judicial assessment of urgency.  The courts will expect to deal without a hearing with applications for variation etc based on representations.  If a hearing is essential, then the case will be listed with advocates having opportunity to attend remotely by video link.  The defendant will not be required to attend but may choose to do so (see para 5). 

INTERIM HOSPITAL ORDERS
34. To be listed for parties to attend by video link. If defendant required, that is to be by video link from custody or hospital if practicable.

PRODUCTION ORDERS; WARRANTS ETC.
35. To be dealt with administratively where possible.  If a hearing is required, then applicant to attend remotely and preferably by video link. Information on oath in support may probably be given over the ‘phone (in contrast to sworn evidence) but alternatively, and beyond challenge, a video link can be used with usual recording on hand-held or DARTS.  Personal attendance is not acceptable unless there are strong reasons why a remote link cannot be used.

DISMISSAL HEARINGS:
36. D in Custody: Subject to urgency and availability of court time to be listed for determination with defendant by PVL and parties attending remotely if possible. Parties may make representations via the list office.  
37. D on Bail: Subject to urgency and availability of court time to be listed for determination with parties attending remotely if possible.  Unless otherwise ordered the defendant is not required to attend but may do so in person if he or she so chooses. 

APPEALS
38. Appellant in custody:  In the case of appeals against conviction or sentence (with prospect of early release) the court will seek to identify means by which a hearing can take place. The parties (and in particular the Respondent if the appellant is not represented) must notify the listing officer of the need to give urgent attention to any such appeal. There will be a judicial assessment of urgency.  An early review hearing in such cases may be required to consider arrangements for the attendance at the appeal hearing of the parties and any witnesses.
39. Appellant not in custody: To be adjourned to a holding date 8 weeks hence (or other period decided by the court) for re-listing when matters clearer.

POCA HEARINGS
40. Whilst the Government’s two metre social distancing rule applies, it is not expected that contested POCA hearings will take place unless arrangements can be made that will accommodate that. Cases will be listed as video link hearings to identify to what extent they are contested and for any necessary adjournment or extension applications.  Self-representing defendants to be contacted and offered the opportunity to make written representations rather than attend as appropriate.

EXECUTED BENCH WARRANTS
41. These will be dealt with in the usual way, and advocates can appear in person or remotely by video link. Police to notify the court before bringing the person to the court building so that a judge may consider if production in person is required; whether an appropriate live link is available from elsewhere; or whether the person can be re-bailed from police custody without a formal hearing.

SELF-REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS
42. D in Custody: PVL to be arranged for FCMH as appropriate. 
43. D on bail: Listing team to contact the defendant if possible, to prevent attendance unless there is genuine urgency, to ensure communication of court orders and identify best contact information.

PROBATION:  
44. It appears that reports can still be prepared within a timescale of at least 5 weeks and there should be a continuing presence of probation at court (or available remotely). There may be difficulties in access to defendants in custody
45. It is unlikely that any stand down report could be prepared.  Interviews with defendants for the purposes of PSRs will probably be conducted by video or audio link.  Where such a report is ordered by the court for a defendant on bail he or she will be required to provide contact details.

DIVERSION AND LIAISON:
46. Services may be available by remote working.

WITNESS SUPPORT:
47. There is very limited or no provision for Witness Support.  The London IVWS may be providing support to individual witnesses.  Court visits by witnesses are not appropriate at the moment.

6th May 2020
 
Appendix A: 

COVID 19 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROTOCOL for PTPHs at the following courts:
Inner London; Kingston; Luton; Norwich; Snaresbrook

1. Not less than 7 days prior to the hearing - All parties to enter their contact details on the (right hand) side bar of the DCS file.

2. Not less than 2 days prior to the hearing - All parties to confirm by widely shared note on DCS that they have made contact and that:
a. the matter is to be resolved by acceptable guilty plea(s) or by the prosecution offering no evidence, OR
b. the matter will proceed to trial, the defendant has been given all of the standard warnings, a draft timetable (to include: trial estimate, type of listing sought, and dates to avoid) is set out, and that the PTPH form has been completed.
c. If all parties agree that, within normal parameters, a Judge’s view may assist in avoiding the necessity of a trial, an agreed succinct statement of the issue is to be placed in the applications section of the DCS. 

3. Not less than 24 hours prior to the hearing -
a. If the appointed judge determines that the attendance of the advocates at PTPH can be dispensed with the Judge will place a widely shared comment on the DCS, and
b. If the appointed judge considers it appropriate to respond to any request for a view etc. the judge will do so.

4. The PTPH will be listed in the normal way-
a. If the attendance of advocates and defendant has been dispensed with, the hearing will remain listed for PTPH (no parties); neither advocates nor defendant are required to attend, the Judge will announce the orders made and upload a copy.
b. Otherwise attendance is required. 
i. Defendants in custody will join by video link. 
ii. For defendants on bail, best efforts should be used to secure the attendance. Bail will continue (subject to potential variation of conditions) and, in the event of guilty pleas, sentence will be adjourned until the courts return to normal operation, subject to a review.
6th May 2020

As of the 30 April 2020 the Upper Tribunal are going to allow non-urgent JRs to be filled by email, and pay online in addition to urgent JRs

Procedure
Beginning on 30th April 2020 and until further notice, Judicial Review applications made to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that do not require urgent or immediate consideration can be filed as follows:
1. By email to UTIACJudicialReviewApplications@justice.gov.uk, by post or at the fees counter when the counter re-opens.
2. Attachments to emails sent to UTIACJudicialReviewApplications@justice.gov.uk must not, in total, exceed 25 MB per email. If they exceed this limit the email will not be delivered.
Fees
Beginning on 30th April 2020, parties lodging applications via email that do not include a successful application for Help with Fees, will be required to make an online payment.
1. For professional users who already have a PBA account, payment will be taken in the normal way.
2. For others, upon receipt of the application contact will be made by a member of HMCTS staff who will ask you to proceed with online payment using a unique reference number.
3. Once the required fee has been paid, the application will be accepted and progressed.
4. Cheques/ postal orders will still be accepted if the application for Judicial Review is filed by post
5. Cheques/postal orders/banker’s drafts/credit and debit card payments will still be accepted if the application for Judicial Review is filed at a fees counter.
6. Other fees payable in respect of judicial review may be paid as described above.

Procedure
Beginning on 23rd March 2020 and until further notice, all applications for Judicial Review that require urgent or immediate consideration (using or including form T483/T484) MUST be filed as follows:

1. If the applicant is represented or unrepresented, and not in immigration detention or at a removal centre, by email to utiac.londonjr@Justice.gov.uk
2. If the applicant is unrepresented and is in immigration detention or at a removal centre, there is no change to the existing arrangements for filing by fax.
3. Attachments to any email must not, in total, exceed 15 MB. If they exceed this limit the email will not be delivered.
4. This applies to the whole of England and Wales; and accordingly the offices in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds, London and Manchester will not accept such applications by hard copy.
Fees
A party making an application as described above by email will be treated as having promised to pay to the Upper Tribunal, on demand, any fee payable for the application AND will be contacted by the Tribunal for the payment in due course.
Please note for any application as described above, the cut-off time is 4pm Monday to Friday (except bank holidays). If your application is not received by 4pm on a working day, please call the Out of Hours Court service at 0207 947 6260.

On the 6 April 2020, the Honourable Mr Justice Chamberlain, handed down judgment in the case of Chelsea Football Club Ltd v Gary Nichols  [2020] EWHC 827 (QB), the judgment is below. This provided an update on the considerations to be applied when considering whether to purge an individual's contempt, in light of the current Covid 19 outbreak, and the announcement of the Minister of Justice, on the 4 April 2020 that there was an intention to release a large number of individuals who were currently in prison and were deemed low risk. 

The Court had considered a similar issue on the 3 April 2020 LAKATAMIA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED​ v Nobu SU [2020] EWHC 806 (Comm), and found that the Contemptor should not be released from prison. 

In the Nichols case it was determined that there were a number of factors that were different in the case. Mr Nichols established that the terms of his imprisonment had changed significantly since the 25 February 2020, when he was held in contempt, and that the Court of Appeal on the 27 March 2020, had not reviewed the sentence in light of the change of the conditions within the prison estate. There had been a number of changes, not least that Mr Nichols  had a number of conditions listed within The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, specifically Schedule 1. Further the conditions within the prison were significantly different and more onerous than when he had been sentenced, in terms of the lack of visitation that had been achieved prior to the cancellation of all visitation to any prison. 

As such applying the test in Swindon Borough Council v Webb (trading as Protective Coatings) [2016] EWCA Civ 152, [2016] 1 WLR 3301, it was determined that Mr Nichols should be released forthwith.