A 18. I turn to the question of sentence. For that purpose I have of course heard the submissions of Mr Pickthall. Before I refer to those, I should identify that the courses open to me within my discretion include activation of the current suspended sentence in whole or in part and a further order including imprisonment for the breaches of the order. In his submissions on mitigation, Mr Pickthall made a number of submissions to the effect that the order and the underlying proceedings were illegal and referred to his continuing belief concerning crime and corruption. In everything he said, he appeared to hold the view that the orders of the court were not binding on him. Orders of the court are binding on him, as with any person. In his remarks on the previous occasion of finding a contempt, Mr Justice Holroyde concluded that Mr Pickthall had shown that he simply refuses to recognise that an order of the court is binding on him. He also said that he had decided to suspend the sentence by a narrow margin and added that he very much hoped that Mr Pickthall will comply with that order and that it will not be necessary to come back before the court and that he must be in no doubt what is to await him if he breaches again. 19. I, of course, consider the matter entirely afresh in the exercise of my discretion but it is quite clear that those submissions to which I have just referred provide further demonstration that Mr Pickthall does not regard the orders of the court as binding on him. From everything he says at the moment, he appears to intend to carry on as he has done before. None of that, of course, provides any basis for mitigation. The matter of potential mitigation that he raises concerns his health in which he has been, I think provisionally, diagnosed as having hemiplegic migraine and he says that pending a full investigation and diagnosis it would be wrong to send him to prison. Those are the essence of Mr Pickthall’s submissions. I have taken that latter matter into account but all in all I can see no basis whatsoever for not activating the suspended sentence in full. These were flagrant and repeated breaches of the order made by Mr Justice Holroyde. There is no element of contrition or regret and the only course, it seems to me, that the court can take is to activate the suspended sentence. In doing so, I bear in mind that the primary purpose of sentencing and committal is to ensure compliance with orders of the court and the effective administration of justice. I can see no reason for giving any further indulgence, for example, by any further suspension in the circumstances of what he has said to me and what I have read. 20. I have considered, given his continuing approach, the question of whether there should be a further penalty for the contempt in breaching the order, namely in addition to the activation of the suspended sentence but in the exercise of my discretion I have concluded that that would, at least on this occasion, not be the right course to take. It follows that I will activate the suspended sentence in full for the period of three months and that will be my order. B C D E F G [Hearing continues] H Apple Transcription Limited 0845 604 5642 5 1-956-2143-16/kc