Absent Foot Anstey harasser loses appeal over contempt finding

A man found in contempt of court for breaching an injunction by sending harassing communications to staff at national firm Foot Anstey has failed in his appeal against the decision. 

Dr Sean Stimson was last month sentenced to 28 days in prison by Mr Justice Griffiths.

Stimson, who was involved in a dispute with the firm over his aunt’s will, was found to have breached a 2024 injunction made by consent by sending a threatening email in June 2025 and a threatening letter in September 2025. Stimson had denied that the email contained a threat, and denied writing or sending the letter.

Stimson appealed against the High Court’s contempt finding on a number of grounds, but did not appear before Lord Justices Coulson, Lewis and Warby at the Royal Courts of Justice. Daniel Mullins, for Stimson, told the court his client was at home as he had ‘issues’ overnight relating to an underlying medical condition.

Following a half-day hearing, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

Coulson, giving ex-tempore judgment with which his fellow judges agreed, said arguments made on behalf of Stimson that the judge erred in finding the letter was in contempt and that the words ‘with violence’ conveyed a threat of unlawful physical force were ‘untenable’. He added: ‘The judge was entitled to reach the view he did on those words. I am in no doubt the judge was right to say this was a threat to use unlawful force. Ground one fails, that means contempt was made out.’

Other submissions for Stimson were found to be ‘inarguable’ while ground two – that the judge had erred in finding Stimson had written or sent the letter – was found to be ‘hopeless’.

‘The judge was entitled to reach the factual conclusions that he did,’ Coulson said, adding it was ‘the only sensible conclusion to which the judge could have come’.

The Court of Appeal made no further order in relation to Stimson’s non-attendance, but took the opportunity to issue a warning.

Coulson said: ‘If an appellant uses the right…to appeal against a committal and the Court of Appeal bends over backwards to get it in quickly because it is concerned with the liberty of that subject, then the least the appellant can do is attend. Out of courtesy and for the administration of justice.’

He noted that if Stimson had been in court, tipstaff could have taken him into custody. ‘Instead, it is going to be more expensive, more costly to the taxpayer for this warrant to be executed. I do not accept as a matter of principle that in some way they are not obliged to attend. Can I make it plain from now on, if appellants in these cases are not present that will be regarded by the court as a serious discourtesy and, depending on the circumstances, potential contempt.’

A costs order on the indemnity basis, sought by Foot Anstey, was granted because Stimson’s conduct in bringing the appeal ‘was out of the norm’.