The appellant submitted that (1) the Judge had failed to take into account the fact that Mr Nichols said he breached the order because of the activities of the club’s agents which he submitted was akin to entrapment, (2) the discount of 17 per cent given for the admission was inadequate.

• The concept of entrapment had no part to play here. The appellant was already standing outside the stadium on match day. The sale was made entirely without assistance.
• The starting point of six months’ imprisonment for a repeat contempt was entirely appropriate, particularly when the breach occurred whilst he was subject to a suspended sentence. Mr Nichols was lucky it was not higher.
• The Judge gave adequate consideration to Mr Nichols’ admission and to some extent the impact on his family. The discount of 17 per cent was appropriate. The maximum reduction of one-third will generally only be appropriate where conduct constituting contempt has been admitted as soon as the proceedings are commenced. Thereafter, any reduction will be on a sliding scale down to about 10 per cent where an admission is made at trial.
• Unless the overall sentence is manifestly excessive, it is not the role of the court on appeal to engage in fine-tuning. The court will look at the matter in the round and ask whether the sentence is appropriate for this contempt by this contemnor.

The Court of Appeal noted it is generally reluctant to interfere with sentencing decisions of this kind. The appellant had shown sustained and undeterred lack of respect for orders of the court.