Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Solicitor General v Millinder seeking to relitigate matters that have been finally disposed of. Nor can he seek to hide behind the fact that he is living outside the jurisdiction. 87. The maximum period of imprisonment that may be imposed by a superior court for contempt of court on any occasion shall not exceed two years. There are no sentencing guidelines. Mr Hays helpfully drew the Court’s attention to some authorities by way of illustration. The nearest to the facts of this case was Foskett v Ezeugo [2018] EWHC 3694 in which the Court imposed a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment on an individual who had repeatedly breached an order that prohibited him from harassing certain judges before whom he had previously appeared. As in this case, the defendant’s answer was that the order made against him was not lawfully made and that it was the product of a conspiracy against him orchestrated by many senior judges. Mr Justice Openshaw assessed that he genuinely believed this to be true. 88. Each case, of course, turns on its own facts. In the Ezeugo case, the majority of the offending acts consisted of vituperative and offensive postings on social media, although there were also abusive emails. The defendant appeared to be acting on his own. The transcript does not reveal what the Court took into account by way of mitigation, though it is clear that the defendant was present and addressed the Court. There is no suggestion that the abuse, deeply unpleasant though it was, had any racist element, nor that there were any thinly veiled threats to the personal safety of those against whom the campaign of harassment was directed. It also appears that the abuse was directed solely at full time or part-time members of the judiciary, and not against members of court staff. Nor, so far as I can tell, did the defendant in that case have a past conviction for harassment arising from similar behaviour towards other legal professionals. 89. All these factors, in my judgment, justify a longer sentence than that imposed in the Ezeugo case, whilst of course the Court recognizes that there may be cases of even worse behaviour which might attract sentences at or towards the top of the available range. The shortest term that can be imposed commensurate with the seriousness of the breaches, bearing in mind the totality of the offending, is one of fifteen months’ immediate imprisonment for the breaches of paragraph 10 of the order and fifteen months’ immediate imprisonment for the breach of paragraph 6 of the order, which will be served concurrently. Nine months of the overall sentence represents punishment for the breaches to date, and the further six months is intended to secure compliance with the order in the future. By reason of section 258(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 half of that 15 month period will be served in prison and Mr Millinder will then be released unconditionally. 90. The Court considered whether to suspend the sentence. There is no evidence that an order for Mr Millinder’s committal, if it were enforced, would impact adversely on any other member of his household. Although suspension of the order of committal is a course that the Court often takes for a first offence, on condition that the contempt is purged, the purpose of suspension in those circumstances is to secure compliance. In this case the Court is satisfied that suspending the order would make no difference whatsoever to Mr Millinder’s behaviour. Should he ever come to his senses, he will have the opportunity to make an application to the Court under CPR 81.10 to purge his contempt and discharge the committal order. For the avoidance of doubt, permission to do so is granted without the necessity of further application to the High 23