Vanessa Brown, Re

In relation to the above numbered case on 3 July 2025, His Honour Judge Willans sitting at the Family Court at West London, sentenced the Defendant, Vanessa Brown, to a custodial sentence of 6 months for contempt of court on breach of an injunction order dated 2 July 2023. The sentence was suspended for a period of 2-years on condition of compliance with the injunction order which continues in force during this period.

The injunction order variously prohibited the Defendant from communicating with the Applicant to the proceedings, posting or publishing any material about the proceedings and/or contacting the Applicant’s employer.

At a liability hearing held between 19-21 March 2025 the Court determined the Defendant had breached the order by reference to 15 specimen breaches. A sanction hearing was adjourned to todays date.

The Court heard from leading and junior counsel instructed for both parties. The Defendant was represented via the Official Solicitor.

The Court handed down a written judgment on 21 March 2025 dealing with liability and related questions. That judgment will not be published.

In any reporting of this decision the identity of the Applicant and any details which might identify the Applicant must not be published.

I have heard from counsel for both parties. I have read the documents placed before me. I have full regard to all of this information whether I specifically reference it within this short judgment or not.

The Applicant came to Court following difficulties between the parties following the breakdown of a personal relationship. It was clear the Defendant did not take this breakdown well.

The Applicant was concerned the Defendant would out of spite or revenge publish information which might cause the Applicant harm. The Applicant was concerned as to ongoing communication both with the Applicant and the Applicant’s family (including children). The Applicant was concerned such communications might extend to his workplace.

On 3 July 2023 the Applicant obtained a without notice order giving the protection required. This was appropriately seved on the Defendant on 7 July 2023 and was maintained at a return date hearing on 31 July 2023.

Notwithstanding this clear order the Defendant proceeded to act in the manner set out in the specimen allegations (now proven to the criminal standard). These were approached as specimen allegations pursuant to case management given the extent of alleged messaging and communication exceeding 1000 messages and communications.

The communications extended to the Applicant, the Applicant’s family and workplace. The very protection of the Court which the Applicant had sought and obtained was undermined fundamentally by the decision of the Defendant to act in the manner she considered appropriate.

At the liability hearing I was satisfied there was no excuse or explanation to be found in suggestions of incapacity or lack of understanding of the nature of an injunction order. I was satisfied so that I was sure that the Defendant knew what she was prohibited from doing but nonetheless acted in this manner for her own purposes.

I am concerned with the tripartite consideration of punishment; compliance and rehabilitation. I have gained real assistance from the JCJ matrix for assessing relevant breaches. I have considered a range of authorities and note in particular Lovett v Wigan BC [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 and Hale v Tanner [2000] 1 WLR 3277

Reflecting on the JCJ matrix I have reached the conclusion the case falls into Harm category 1. Whilst this was not a case of actual violence or indeed threats of the same, it was nonetheless calculated to cause damage, and, as set out in the Applicant’s victim impact statement did cause real and lasting damage, including to the Applicant’s reputation. It is difficult to conclude that this was not the intention of the communications. The Applicant sets out the loss of employment and the embarassment the publications caused. It is important to bear in mind these were the very matters the Applicant had fear in respect of and it is plain the Defendant was conscious of this when she acted. In my view she acted to satiate her own personal needs and in the knowledge of the harm this would likely cause to the Applicant.

Turning to Culpability I consider, contrary to the points made on behalf of the Defendant, that this was not a case in which she bore lower culpability (Minor breach or breaches). Many of the points made go to a departure from the starting point rather than the starting point itself. However, for the avoidance of doubt the breaches in this case were numerous in number and persistent in character until action was taken. They covered the range of areas of protection sought and obtained by the Applicant. The Applicant, family and employer were contacted and multiple social media posts were published. The audience for this breach was in that way significantly uncontained.

I consider the initial starting point is a period of imprisonment of 6 months with a range from 8 weeks to 18 months.

The manner of breach is itself aggravating and tends to place the conduct above the starting point. In my assessment allowing for this derives a sentence of 8 months imprisonment.

There are mitigating points. I bear in mind the Defendant’s mental health challenges and the impact much of this has had on her life. I must though note that she is the author of her own problems in this regard. I accept she has caring responsibilities and others would be effected by the sentence passed. Importantly I also have regard to the Applicant’s view, which is that the Applicant does not seek a period of immediate imprisonment for the Defendant. I bear in mind her fragility and the additional impact a prison sentence might have on her given the same.

Ultimately I judge the these points have a reducing impact but less than is suggested on behalf of the Defendant. I have reduced the sentence to 6 months imprisonment.

There will be a sentence of 6 months imprisonment on specimen 15. A similar sentence will be given for items 11-14 (concurrent). Items 1-10 will attract a sentence of 3 months (concurrent).

I have considered whether this sentence should be immediate but have determined for the reasons set out above that the justice of the case and the application of the three principles supports a suspension of the sentence. Compliance is highly relevant. I accept this is the Applicant’s focus. I intend to suspend the sentence for a period of 2 years on compliance with the injunction. In the event of a proven further breach during this period the Defendant may be punished for any new matter as well as having this sentence activated.

I deal with costs separately.