Respondents who had admitted bringing a fraudulent personal injury claim in a contrived road traffic collision were committed to six weeks in prison for contempt of court. That sentence reflected a substantial reduction from 12 months' imprisonment as they had admitted the fraud and had willingly assisted the insurer in disclosing information. The applicant insurance company (L) applied for the committal of the respondents (R1, R2, R3 and R4) for contempt of court. The respondents had brought a claim for car damage and personal injury arising out of a collision. L alleged that the claim was fraudulent and the collision was contrived. The respondents subsequently admitted that they had put forward statements in support of a fraudulent claim. The respondents alleged that R1 and R2, who were husband and wife, had been approached by an acquaintance and, in exchange for a fee, had agreed to advance a claim based on a contrived collision. In the course of the instant proceedings the respondents had disclosed information on the acquaintance who had allegedly formulated the claim. R1 and R2 had two young children, one of which was only 4 months old and still breastfeeding. The claim had been brought in R1's name and she had visited the doctor in order to obtain a medical report in support of the claim. R3 and R4 were R1's parents. HELD: Although, if the respondents' account was taken to be true, they were mere "foot soldiers", their conduct had to be deterred because it struck at the heart of the justice system and affected the public as a whole in increasing the cost of insurance policies. Against that background and the need to deter anyone from engaging in such serious fraud, there was no alternative but to impose custodial sentences. Nonetheless, the court had to take into account the fact that they had admitted to the fraud and, more significantly, that they had willingly assisted L in disclosing the relevant information. However, R1 had not merely agreed to lend her name but had assisted in the scheme by visiting the doctor. Although her having such young children was a factor to be considered, she must have appreciated that the proceedings were ongoing and that there was a real risk of a custodial sentence. The court would be failing in its duty to the public and in deterring such further conduct if it did not impose an immediate custodial sentence. The court would have imposed a sentence well in excess of 12 months, but in view of her assistance to L with the disclosure of information, a substantial reduction was appropriate: the court ordered R1 to serve six weeks' imprisonment. There was no reason to distinguish R2's conduct, and accordingly he was also sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. In light of R3 and R4's lesser involvement and the fact that R1 and R2 had led them into the situation, a suspended sentence of six weeks' imprisonment was appropriate for them. Application granted
