Jessica Jarvis

The Court of Protection rarely exercises its power to commit individuals to prison for contempt. However, the recent case of Derbyshire County Council v James Grundy (DCC v Grundy) sets a striking precedent, demonstrating the court’s willingness to enforce its injunctions where continued non-compliance endangers a protected party (P). This case highlights the complex interplay between capacity assessments, the enforcement of court orders, and the limits of judicial patience. It serves as a crucial reminder for CoP practitioners about how and when committal proceedings may be necessary.

Background

Mr. Grundy was subject to an injunction preventing him from having unsupervised contact with P, a vulnerable individual under the jurisdiction of the CoP. The injunction was initially imposed because Mr. Grundy’s behaviour towards P was causing significant distress and safeguarding concerns.

Why Did the Council Intervene?

Derbyshire County Council became involved due to repeated reports of harmful behaviour and emotional distress experienced by P. Despite their long-standing relationship, P began expressing fear and discomfort due to Mr. Grundy’s persistent presence at her home. Reports indicated that:

• Mr. Grundy displayed controlling and intimidating behaviour towards P.
• He refused to leave her home when asked.
• He pressured P to comply with his wishes, making her feel unsafe.
• He was aggressive and had a history of throwing things, which escalated P’s anxiety.
• P showed visible distress when discussing Mr. Grundy with professionals, stating that she felt frightened and unable to refuse his visits.

Given these concerns, the CoP issued an order requiring that Mr. Grundy only have supervised contact with P to ensure her safety and emotional wellbeing. However, despite this clear legal directive, Mr. Grundy repeatedly ignored the order.

Continued Non-Compliance

Despite being fully aware of the injunction’s terms, Mr. Grundy continued to visit P at her home without supervision. Police bodycam footage and witness statements provided irrefutable evidence of multiple breaches, including:

• 15 June 2023 – Found inside P’s house after claiming he was “just dropping off things for the cats.”
• 30 June 2023 – Again inside P’s home, seated next to her unsupervised.
• 14 September 2023 – Present at P’s home, interacting with her without supervision.
• 12 October 2023 – Once more at P’s home despite knowing he was prohibited.

Each breach undermined the protective purpose of the injunction and escalated P’s distress. In particular, video footage captured P expressing relief when police arrived, reinforcing concerns about the impact of Mr. Grundy’s presence.

---

The Role of Capacity in Contempt Proceedings

One of the central issues before the court was whether Mr. Grundy had the mental capacity to understand and comply with the injunction. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the presumption of capacity applies unless proven otherwise.

In this case, conflicting assessments were presented:

• A social worker’s report suggested he lacked capacity to understand the court order’s implications.
• An independent medical expert’s assessment found no conclusive evidence of incapacity.

After considering the evidence, the court ruled that Mr. Grundy had litigation capacity and was fully aware of the consequences of breaching the order. This finding was pivotal, as it meant that his contempt was wilful rather than arising from an inability to understand or comply.

---

Committal for Contempt: The Court’s Rationale

Given the repeated nature of the breaches, the CoP determined that no lesser sanction would deter Mr. Grundy. The court applied the sentencing framework set out in Wigan Borough Council v Lovett, classifying his actions under Category A2—indicating high culpability and significant harm. Both the local authority and Mr. Grundy’s own legal representative agreed that the custody threshold had been met.

In sentencing, the court:

• Activated the previous 28-day suspended sentence.
• Imposed an additional 28-day custodial sentence for the new breaches, to run concurrently.
• Emphasised that further breaches could lead to additional committal proceedings.

While CoP committal proceedings remain rare, this case demonstrates that the court will enforce its orders robustly where necessary.

Key Takeaways for Deputies

1. Capacity is a Crucial Factor in Contempt Cases

A key issue in this case was whether the defendant had the mental capacity to comply with the order. Practitioners should ensure that thorough capacity assessments are conducted where a party’s understanding of an injunction is in doubt. Courts require clear, well-supported medical evidence before making a determination.

2. Judicial Patience Has Limits

The CoP typically exercises great caution in enforcing penalties. However, when repeated breaches undermine the court’s authority and a protected person’s welfare, the court may take decisive action. Practitioners should advise clients on the serious consequences of non-compliance and document any mitigating factors early in proceedings.

3. Injunctions Must Be Enforceable and Clear

Legal representatives should ensure that the terms of any injunction are clearly communicated to the respondent, using plain language or Easy Read versions where necessary. Compliance should be monitored, and any breaches should be addressed swiftly through legal channels.

4. Local Authorities Must Be Prepared to Escalate Enforcement

This case illustrates that local authorities should be prepared to seek committal where necessary, particularly where breaches are persistent and affect the protected party’s welfare. Evidence, such as police bodycam footage and witness statements, was key to proving breaches to the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).

5. Courts Will Apply the Lovett Sentencing Guidelines in CoP Cases

Although Lovett arose from a civil contempt case rather than the CoP, this case confirms that the same structured approach applies when considering penalties for breaches. Practitioners should be familiar with the culpability and harm categories when advising clients on potential sanctions.

Conclusion

DCC v Grundy is a landmark case in Court of Protection enforcement, setting a rare precedent for committal to prison in contempt cases. It highlights that the CoP will take decisive action when necessary, particularly where non-compliance endangers a vulnerable individual’s welfare.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of capacity assessments, clear communication of injunctions, and the serious consequences of repeated breaches. While committal remains an exceptional measure, DCC v Grundy demonstrates that the Court of Protection will use its full enforcement powers when faced with persistent defiance of its orders.