Defender in disqualification proceedings who took photos of witness and insulted her online in contempt of court

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC HAM 22
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Linda Nicolson

Garry Pettigrew, the managing director of Healthcare Environmental Services Ltd was the defender in an action raised by the Business Secretary seeking his disqualification from the office of directorship. The principal action itself was later remitted to the Court of Session. He argued that he did not have notice that the persons photographed were witnesses for the pursuer and in any event there was insufficient evidence he had taken the photographs.

The minute of contempt was heard by Sheriff Linda Nicolson, with Mr Maciver, solicitor, appearing for the minuter and Ms S Munro, solicitor, for the respondent.

Hurt by posts

On 29 April 2024, the respondent attended Hamilton Sheriff Court’s Civil Building and entered the waiting room for pursuers’ witnesses. Among the witnesses were two persons whom he had dealt with in the past, Ms Fiona Daly of NHS England and Mr John MacKintosh of HSBC UK. The respondent had not at that time received intimation that they would be called as witnesses.

The respondent took photographs of Ms Daly and Mr MacKintosh on his mobile phone and disseminated them, so they were posted on an account on the platform X (formerly Twitter) with the name @HealthcareENV. A series of posts were made from the account that, among other things, referred to Ms Daly by saying “You would need a bigger pie to cover that face and she knows her pies”, referred to her as a “fat trougher”, and said that she would “lie for the government, steal your business and do everything in her power to make sure the media don’t report the truth”. The respondent replied to some of these posts using his personal account.

In evidence, Ms Daly said that she felt hurt by the posts and that she was being targeted simply for doing her job. The posts made her feel apprehensive about returning to court to give evidence. For the minuter it was submitted that the evidence supported the inference that the respondent was the one who took and disseminated the photographs, and his conduct undermined the delivery of impartial justice.

For the respondent it was submitted that none of the three witnesses in the room saw the respondent take the photographs, and alternative culprits included the respondent’s partner and another witness, Mr Brown. Further, Ms Daly and Mr MacKintosh had not been identified as witnesses to the respondent at that time, and therefore taking photographs of them did not challenge the authority of the court.

Grossly insulting

In her decision, Sheriff Nicolson began by evaluating the evidence: “[The pursuer’s witnesses] were all clear that the respondent was in the room and they were consistent in their evidence as to what area of the room he sat in, that he had his mobile phone out and that the angle that the photographs were taken from placed the photographer in the same place as the respondent. It is also apparent from the floor plan and photographs produced that the photographer would be in the area which the witnesses described the respondent as being in.”

She continued: “The defender’s witnesses lacked credibility and were inconsistent with each other. I am not persuaded by Mr Brown’s evidence that he was the person who posted the photographs and comments on the Healthcare Environmental X account. However, his evidence does raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the respondent was the person who made those posts.”

Noting that the initial dissemination had been compounded by the comments on X, Sheriff Nicolson said: “The English authorities of R v D (2004) and Solicitor General v Cox (2016), while not binding, do highlight the concern caused by the potential for misuse of images to intimidate witnesses and the consequential impact on the court’s authority and the administration of justice. In this instance, there was, in fact, misuse of the images, and the dissemination by the respondent of the images allowed that. The tweets were grossly insulting to the witness Ms Daly, both in terms of her personal appearance and in terms of her integrity.”

She added on Ms Daly’s witness status: “Fiona Daly was sent a citation and I inferred that John MacKintosh was there because he was also. Their names had not been intimated to the respondent before the evidential hearing, which may have been a failing on the part of the minuter. However, the interlocutor assigning the evidential hearing was warrant for witnesses to be cited and Ms Daly and Mr MacKintosh had been called to attend at court and had complied. They were, therefore, witnesses.”

The sheriff concluded: “Where the court is prevented from ensuring a witness’ dignity and privacy, that in itself is a challenge to the authority of the court. Where that infringement then has the potential to form an obstacle, or is an obstacle, to capturing all relevant evidence in proceedings, that is also a challenge to the authority of the court. If such an infringement went unchecked, it may well lead to a repeat of such conduct by the respondent or others, which would further challenge the authority of the court.”

The respondent was therefore found to be in contempt of court.