North Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers

Kae Burnell-Chambers, there are a number of things I need to say before I pass sentence. You can therefore remain seated whilst I explain what I am going to do and the reasons for my decision.

On 25 July of this year, you, Kae Burnell-Chambers, were found guilty of contempt of court by Mr Jonathan Glasson KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. He did so on a basis of plea which was agreed by you and the claimant and accepted by the court on the same day.

Your sentencing hearing took place before me last Wednesday, 8 October. The case was opened to me in detail by the barrister for the North Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust. I then heard detailed mitigation from your barrister, Ben Bradley KC, and both barristers provided me with skeleton arguments, and at the hearing I was taken through the relevant underlying documentation with care. Mr Bradley referred me to documents in your mitigation. It is only necessary, therefore, for me to summarise the key facts in these sentencing remarks.

Your contempts were committed in the course of a clinical negligence claim you brought against the Trust and which was issued in May 2019. You alleged that the Trust were negligent as they failed to act sufficiently quickly to identify and treat the condition known as cauda equina syndrome, or CES, when you presented yourself at their hospital on 10 August 2016. You had suffered from this condition since 2014 and it did indeed recur in 2016.

CES is a severe type of spinal stenosis where all the nerves in the lower back suddenly become severely compressed and prompt treatment is required in order to get the best outcome. You received emergency surgery at the Trust’s hospital on 11 August 2016. There was a very short period of delay in your treatment and the Trust made a limited admission of breach of duty, but causation and the consequence of that short delay was disputed by the Trust.

Your case was that the Trust’s negligence left you severely disabled, and as a result, you said you required a considerable package of support and care, and claimed damages against the Trust of £3,010,708. That damages claim included a claim for future care and assistance of over £800,000, future loss of earnings of over £690,000, occupational therapy aids of £89,000 and future accommodation and household costs of over £720,000. All those aspects of your claim were based on a dishonestly exaggerated claim.

You did suffer a second episode of genuine CES in August 2016, but the truth was that you made a good recovery from that condition over time and you deliberately chose to lie about symptoms in order to make a very substantial dishonest claim for compensation.

The Trust found you out through surveillance. Their evidence that they obtained showed that you were, amongst other things, walking fast across a car park forecourt or unaided in a wood, when, on the same day, you were seeing medical experts and presenting as being highly disabled with limited mobility and needing to walk with a stick. That evidence showed that on your good days, you were able to live your life normally, and you now accept that you dishonestly failed to tell any of the medical experts who assessed you that this was so.

The surveillance evidence was served in September 2021 and after you had accepted that your claim had been brought fundamentally dishonestly, it was discontinued, in October 2022.

These committal proceedings were commenced in September 2023 and permission to proceed was granted in July 2024 when directions were given for the committal hearing to take place over five days in April 2025. That hearing was adjourned until October this year, again over five days, because in March 2025 the Trust was given permission to rely on evidence which showed you participating in body painting activities, and that evidence showed there was no limit to your movement or mobility in 2019 when you were either painting or acting as a model.

There was then a further application made by the Trust to gain sight of your solicitor’s file on the basis that privilege had been waived, and by May of this year, you made an initial indication in relation to a basis of plea which was eventually accepted at a court hearing in July. The hearing listed for five days in October was then re-listed for one rather than five.

I am sure that your acts of contempt were in two forms; first, your attempts to interfere with the due administration of justice by your representations and statements to medical and other experts during the course of interviews and examinations. This took place over a period of 11 months, between June 2020 and May 2021. And second, by making and causing to be made, false statements in documents verified by a statement of truth, deliberately giving a misleading impression of your symptoms. These false statements were made in five different documents during the course of your claim.

You agreed the following basis of admissions in these terms, which I pick up from paragraph 4, and I read from the document that you signed and the Trust signed and was accepted by the court on 25 July:

“(4)

I do and did suffer from a degree of disability, such that on bad days

I consider myself to be disabled.

(5)

On good days, my function will be near normal. I continue to suffer with

issues of bladder, bowel and sexual function, even on good days.

(6)

I admit and accept I should have explained, both in my witness statements

and when being examined by the experts, the true nature of the fluctuation in

my symptoms, and more specifically, that on good days my mobility would be

near normal. The failure to do so gave a misleading impression.

(7)

By giving a misleading impression, I accept that the contents of my

witness statement served as part of the civil claim were untrue.

(8)

Further, I accept that when I saw experts on some occasions, though I cannot specifically recall which consultations, I would have been presenting on days

where my function was not at its worst. During such consultations, (a) without informing the experts I was doing so, I deliberately attempted to demonstrate

what I perceived my function was at its worst, and (b) in doing so, I both (i) deliberately misled the experts as to the true nature of my function on that day

and (ii) deliberately feigned my presentation to the experts by presenting with a level

of function and disability that was worse than that which I was truly capable of

during the examination.

(9)

I accept that my actions as described above deliberately interfered with the administration of justice in that I misrepresented and gave a misleading impression

as to the true nature of my functional ability. I knew that in doing so, I was likely

to receive more money in compensation as a result.

(10)

I offer my apologies to the court and the claimant. I understand that what I did

was wrong. Not only have I wasted time and public money but I know that it was wrong to misrepresent my condition when pursuing the civil claim. I accept that I should be punished for my actions. My personal circumstances will be set out in mitigation.”

You were found guilty of contempt of court on the basis of those singed admissions and it is not for me to go behind them, which have now been accepted by the court.

You have heard the court refer to the case of Attorney General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103, SC at [44],and to the relevant guidelines published by the Sentencing Council in relation to the reduction in sentence for a guilty plea and the imposition of community and custodial sentences, and in particular, the section setting out the factors to be considered when deciding whether or not a custodial sentence can be suspended. I have also had regard to the other legal cases referred to in the barristers’ skeleton arguments, although the central consideration is the facts of the individual case.

You were born on 24 December 1980 and are now aged 44. Your culpability is high because during numerous medical examinations, and in documents prepared for the court, you deliberately exaggerated and lied about your disability in order to present a picture that you had a serious and ongoing disability caused by the Trust and to grossly inflate your claim for damages on a very substantial scale.

The evidence the Trust obtained, which showed you body painting in 2019 and, once painted, as a model able to walk as normal are devastating in showing the lies you told to the medical experts about your mobility and the nature and extent of your disability. The same is true in relation to the video made of the medical examination in your home, showing you struggling to walk or on the stairs or getting out of bed, and the surveillance footage taken in the spring of 2021. You deliberately lied to all those medical experts, leading them to believe that you were unable to do very much at all, and that you were a person with significant support and daily accommodation needs. You never told any of them that your condition of CES fluctuated; rather, you deliberately made out that your ability to function was always at its very worst when that was completely untrue.

The true value of any claim you had relating to the short period of delay in your treatment in August 2016 and based on an accurate presentation of your injuries was far far less than what you were seeking to dishonestly recover from the Trust. You accept that this was a very substantial damages claim, and I am sure the level of harm you intended to cause to the Trust, a public organisation, is also high.

You are right to accept, as you do, through your barrister, that this was offending at a serious level which passes the custody threshold. This is plainly not a case where a fine would be sufficient penalty.

I turn to the period of imprisonment. The maximum period allowed by law is two years. The Trust, who have prosecuted these proceedings, maintain that the appropriate starting point for sentence is a term of 12 months’ imprisonment. Your barrister maintained that in this case the appropriate starting point for sentence is six months’ imprisonment. In my view, having regard to the high culpability and harm in this case, the appropriate starting point is 12 months’ custody.

I now turn to aggravating and mitigating features. The Trust have not referred the court to any aggravating features. In mitigation, the court has been provided with a number of documents, all of which I have read. Those documents include the following. First, your witness statement, dated 16 September 2025. Second, a letter from Dr Isaac, your consultant in spinal injuries rehabilitation, dated 12 June 2025. Third, a letter from Dr Ahmed, a GP at your medical practice in Barnetby, dated 13 August 2025. Fourth, a medical report of Piera Santullo, a consultant in physical and rehabilitation medicine, dated 6 March 2025. Fifth. The psychiatric report of Dr Ian Cumming, forensic psychiatrist, dated 17 September 2025. That report describes your mental health history as being “quite light” and states that it has always been managed at the primary care level. The report makes the point there is no record of a formal diagnosis of ADHD or Autism Spectrum Disorder and the report does not identify any reason why your needs cannot be managed in a prison environment.

The sixth document I was provided with in mitigation was the assessment prepared by North Lincolnshire Council in relation to your son (“M”) who is now aged 14. That was an up-to-date assessment which was prepared on or about 12 September of this year. M’s father is Benjamin Potter who is your partner, and there are a number of features of that report that I should refer to.

The report explains your family circumstances, and in particular that your partner is a convicted sex offender, and as a result of that vigilante behaviour was targeted at your home and that led to you moving your home and to M being home-schooled. You are responsible for M’s home-schooling. The report explains that you and your family have participated in the assessment set out in the report and each member of the family has shared his or her individual views in understanding the solution to support decision-making and outcomes in the event the court imposes a custodial sentence. The report identifies that if the court imposes an immediate custodial sentence, then M cannot be left in his father’s sole care.

The report then sets out that the plan that has been agreed within your family is that Mr Potter will move out and live with his parents elsewhere and that your mother will provide care for M within the family home for the duration of any custodial sentence, and your daughter, M’s older adult sister, will also be living in the home. The report says that M is close to his sister.

The report says that M’s relationship with his father is more akin to friendship, and they spend a lot of time together doing activities. Your mother is 69, and the report explains that if M is in her care, then additional support may be required to ensure that he continues to meet his educational targets if you are away from the home, and that in these circumstances, additional support and advice can be provided by the North Lincolnshire Council Elective Home Education Team.

The report also goes on to say this, and I quote:

“[M} has experienced instability and adversity within his childhood,

which has been well-documented within this assessment. The presenting

concerns are that Kae may receive a custodial sentence. If this does happen,

then that would lead to a further period of instability for [M], when he

would effectively be separated from both his parents. Such circumstances

would have a significant impact on [M’s] health, development and

emotional wellbeing. [M’s] emotional security lies within the security

of the family unit where all his holistic needs are being met. [M]

doesn’t have any support network within the wider community.”

The report states that if Mr Potter leaves the family home, he will move to live with his parents and his ability to have contact with his children would be limited due to the distance, and he does not have a car. The report does not address the nature of this impact in terms of the length of any potential prison term, although plainly, the longer you are away from home, the greater the impact.

Then, later in the report, the likely impact of an immediate custodial sentence on M is set out in these terms:

“[M’s] history of adverse experiences are specifically linked to Ben’s

offending and subsequent conviction, which has had a significant impact

on [M’s] own stability, identity, social integration and emotional

wellbeing. If Kae were to receive a custodial sentence, there will be a

further impact on [M] resulting in separation from both his parents and

changes in his family dynamics and relationships.”

I have not been provided with a pre-sentence report; no direction was made for such a report and you have not sought one. I am quite satisfied that in the light of the detailed information the court has been provided with about you, the court is able to sentence you without one.

In terms of mitigation, I take into account the following. First, you do not have any previous convictions, cautions or warnings. Second, you have now apologised to the court, but you only did so some 18 months after the commencement of the committal proceedings, and after the evidence in relation to the body painting had been served by the Trust. Third, you had a genuine claim in relation to the short delay in your treatment, but it was for a far more modest amount than that claimed and you have lost any prospect of recovery, given your fundamental dishonesty. Fourth, you do suffer some degree of disability, which arises out of the cauda equina syndrome, such that on bad days, you consider yourself to be disabled, and you continue to suffer with issues in relation to bladder and bowel function. I have also taken into account the letter about you from Dr Isaac dated 12 June. Fifth, you care for your son M, now 14, and supervise his home-schooling. If you are in prison, that responsibility will pass to your mother who has agreed to undertake this role with additional support from the local authority if necessary. M’s father will also have to leave the home because of his conviction for sexual offending, and I accept that that will have the impact on M set out in the report from North Lincolnshire Council. Sixth, you have admitted your guilt in advance of a five-day hearing listed on 6 October.

The Trust say that the discount for the guilty plea should be 10 to 20 per cent; your barrister argued that it should be 20 to 25 per cent. Taking into account the relevant guideline and the fact that the basis of appeal was agreed in July, which was three months before the five-day hearing, in my view, the appropriate discount for the guilty plea is 20 per cent.

I now turn to the sentence. I adjust the starting point of 52 weeks’ imprisonment down to 33 weeks’ imprisonment to take into account all the mitigating factors I have identified, except for the credit for guilty plea. That, in my view, is the shortest period of imprisonment I am able to impose. Applying the credit for guilty plea, the sentence is 26 weeks’ imprisonment.

The next question is whether I should suspend that sentence. I listened carefully to all that your barrister, Mr Bradley, submitted to the court, and also set out in his written argument. I have also read with care the report of North Lincolnshire Council. I am required to weigh the relevant factors set out in the Sentencing Council’s guideline in relation to the imposition of community and custodial sentences in order to determine whether it is possible to suspend statement. I have had regard to all those factors.

I accept that this is a case where immediate custody will cause disruption to M and the separation from his parents will have an adverse impact on him and in particular his stability and emotional wellbeing. There is, however, a clear plan to care for him by your mother, and for her to home-school him, and his older sister, with whom he has a good relationship, will be living in the home and will be able to provide support. Further, the local authority have made it clear that they can provide additional support with home-schooling. I have taken into account all that has been said in the North Lincolnshire Council’s report, and have particularly done so with the length of sentence I have identified.

In my view, those factors and the other mitigation which your barrister explained are all outweighed by the very serious nature of your contempt which is so serious that the appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody. This is not a case where, having weighed all the relevant factors, the sentence of imprisonment should be suspended.

Kae Burnell-Chambers, for your admitted contempts of court, I sentence you to 26 weeks’ imprisonment. You will serve up to one-half of your sentence in custody and then you will be released. That is the end of these sentencing remarks.