Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Solicitor General v Millinder 81. In terms of aggravating features, the emails were sent to three different recipients (Mr Justice Fancourt, his clerk, and His Honour Judge Prince – I am not treating Newcastle Crown Court as a further recipient) over a period of three months. They are similar to conduct that Mr Millinder has been warned about before, and there are numerous examples of such conduct. There is a very long history to this matter, and the position has been made clear to Mr Millinder time and time again. He continues to attempt to re-open litigation that is final and to generate vexatious, prolix documents; and, as I have said, previous orders of the Court have proved to be no deterrent. 82. Mr Millinder sought permission to appeal against the section 42 Order and it was refused; some of the breaches occurred after Mr Millinder became aware of Lord Justice William Davis’s order. 83. The language of the emails is not just intemperate and contumelious, but threatening and sinister. Those falling into Category 1 were plainly designed to instil fear in the recipient for their personal safety and potentially that of their family. In the second email, Mr Millinder indicated that he and unidentified associates (he used the word “we”) had traced Mr Justice Fancourt’s home address, and that he was under surveillance. He was told “we are coming for you”. Likewise in the ninth email his clerk was told “we have you under surveillance”. The first email also insinuated, falsely, that Mr Justice Fancourt was subject to an ongoing investigation or process. The sixth suggested that a report had been made to the City of London police. The section 42 order was made against a background of Mr Millinder attempting to institute private prosecutions against judges whose decisions he dislikes; the attachments to the first email demonstrated that he was at it again. 84. Mr Millinder has repeatedly used racist and otherwise offensive language to insult members of the judiciary. He has repeatedly made wholly unsubstantiated and false allegations of corruption, dishonesty and criminal conspiracy against different judges, for no reason other than that they have rejected the arguments that he has advanced before them for reasons that are clear, cogent and legally unimpeachable. He has also been rude, oppressive and unpleasant to court staff. He has demonstrated by these specific communications sent in breach of the section 42 order that Mr Justice Swift’s characterisation of him as a bully who attempts to browbeat the Court into giving him what he wants, was fully justified. 85. A further aggravating feature is that Mr Millinder has also been convicted of the criminal offence of harassment of solicitors who work for Womble Bond Dickinson, and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment. That conviction relates to matters which occurred before the breaches of the section 42 order in this case. No issue of totality arises in connection with the imposition of that earlier sentence; there is no relevant overlap. Any sentence imposed by the Divisional Court will run consecutively. That means that in practical terms, if the order for committal is enforced it is unlikely to be Mr Millinder’s first experience of custody. 86. As to mitigation, none has been advanced. It is possible that Mr Millinder is delusional, though there is quite a lot of room for doubt about that. He is certainly vindictive and spiteful. Even a genuine belief that he has been wronged, and that previous court orders have been unjust, affords no mitigation for his behaviour. Court orders are to be obeyed, and it is not open to an individual like Mr Millinder to choose to flout them because he disagrees with them or because they prevent him from 22