The Chief Constable of Kent Police & Anor v Daryll Sturgess Taylor

The Chief Constable of Kent Police & Anor v Daryll Sturgess Taylor

The defendant was personally served with clear and unambiguous orders requiring him to provide an affidavit and submit his devices for deletion of confidential police videos. He deliberately failed to comply with these mandatory orders, and it was within his power to do so at the relevant times. The claimants proved these breaches to the criminal standard. However, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant retained the police videos after personal service of the order, so contempt on that ground was not established.

Parties
Claimant: The Chief Constable of Kent Police; Claimant: Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP; Defendant: Daryll Sturgess Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Penalty Adjourned
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court for breaches of mandatory orders; penalty hearing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Court Orders, Law of Confidence, Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions, Personal Service of Orders
Civil Procedure Media Law Confidentiality Contempt of Court Breach of Court Orders Law of Confidence Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions Personal Service of Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Chief Constable of Kent Police

Claimant

Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP

Claimant

Daryll Sturgess Taylor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Penalty Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached paragraphs (2) and (3) of the First Order as varied by the Second Order
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached paragraph (1)(a) of the First Order by retaining confidential police videos
  3. 3 Whether the orders were clear, unambiguous, and personally served

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was personally served with clear and unambiguous orders requiring him to provide an affidavit and submit his devices for deletion of confidential police videos. He deliberately failed to comply with these mandatory orders, and it was within his power to do so at the relevant times. The claimants proved these breaches to the criminal standard. However, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant retained the police videos after personal service of the order, so contempt on that ground was not established.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court for breaches of mandatory orders; penalty hearing adjourned.

Orders

  • Defendant found in contempt of court for breaching paragraphs (2) and (3) of the First Order as varied by the Second Order.
  • Allegation of contempt for breach of paragraph (1)(a) of the First Order dismissed.