that a number of individuals, falling within the provisions of paragraph 8(c), as employees and officers of the claimant Council, are engaged in corruption, abuse of power and gross misconduct in public office and telling lies. A 11. Ground 3 concerns an alleged breach again of paragraph 8(c) on The Bloodhound website identifying a particular individual with a legal qualification, who is an employee of the first claimant Council, and alleging that she has committed a serious criminal offence and likewise makes an allegation against another employee of participating in crime and of being a deliberately dishonest public servant. 12. Ground 4 alleges that the defendant is guilty of breaching paragraph 8(a) of the order by on or about 21st February 2016 sending an email to two identified councillors with the subject matter “Conspiracy” and a reference to a Council encouraging or assisting crime, the Mouldsworth Parish Council and in breach of the requirement not to contact or attempt to contact any current employee or councillor of the first claimant, and in terms, none of which fall within the exception provided by paragraph 9 of the order. 13. Ground 5 again concerns an allegation of breach of paragraph 8(a) by emails sent to two named councillors on or about 1st March 2016. Again, the details of the matters raised not falling within the exceptions of paragraph 9. 14. Likewise, ground 6 concerns, once again supported by the relevant document, an email sent to a Council employee on or about 2nd March 2016, not falling within the exception of paragraph 9. 15. Ground 7 again alleges a breach of paragraph 8(a) by an email sent on or about 4th March to three named councillors, copied to four other councillors, concerning matters not falling within the exception in paragraph 9. 16. Ground 8 again alleges breach of paragraph 8(a), supported by the document on email, to a particular councillor, Mr Jones, again with matters not falling within exception 9. Once again the addressee is somebody who was a subject of the previous contempt application, namely Councillor Jones, which led to the committal order of Mr Justice Holroyde. 17. In the submissions which the defendant, Mr Pickthall, made to me he squarely admitted that he was in breach of the order of Mr Justice Holroyde in every respect alleged. He wished to argue before me his continuing and underlying insistence that his allegations of criminal, dishonest or corrupt conduct are true but I have not allowed that course. This application is concerned with whether he is in breach of the injunctions whose purpose is to prevent a repetition of these allegations. Having considered all the evidence, and applied the relevant law as set out above, I am quite satisfied on the criminal standard of proof that the defendant is in breach of the injunctions of Mr Justice Holroyde, dated 1st December 2015, as alleged in each of the eight grounds. That is my finding. In addition, the defendant so admits. There were deliberate breaches of the order and there can be no doubt that he is once again in contempt of court. I will now turn to questions of sentence. B C D E F G H [Hearing continues] Apple Transcription Limited 0845 604 5642 4 1-956-2143-16/kc