Olk v Olk

A committal order may stand despite defects in the application or order where the contemnor received a fair trial, the order rests on valid grounds, and no prejudice or injustice resulted. The court may amend the order or delete improperly specified counts while preserving a properly established contempt. Alleged breaches must be sufficiently identified in the notice to commit; specific incidents cannot be treated as separate contempts where they were not separately alleged. Alcoholism does not mitigate deliberate breaches of injunctions where the contemnor chose circumstances that made further breaches likely. A substantial custodial sentence may be justified by repeated, flagrant breaches and the need to protect the other party.

The applicant appealed against a committal order made by His Honour Judge Orrell in the Derby County Court on 28 March 2001. He had been committed to prison for 12 months for repeated breaches of non-molestation and exclusion injunctions concerning his estranged wife. The alleged conduct included daily attendance at the wife's home and two particular incidents involving banging on the doors while heavily intoxicated.

On 16 May 2001 the judge refused the application to purge contempt, but varied the sentence for a further contempt in the face of the court. Before the Court of Appeal, the applicant challenged the fairness and procedure of the committal proceedings, the sufficiency of the notice, and the length of the sentence. The central issues were whether the specific incidents could support separate findings when not separately pleaded, whether the remaining committal was prejudiced by that defect, and whether the 12-month sentence was justified.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The references to the two specific incidents were deleted from the committal order. The committal for the general course of daily attendance and attempted entry remained, and the 12-month sentence was upheld.
2. The notice to commit sufficiently alleged the general contempt consisting of repeated attendance at the wife's property and attempted entry. The two incidents on 9 February 2001 were powerful examples aggravating that general contempt, but they were not separately identified allegations. The judge was therefore not entitled to commit the appellant separately on those incidents.
3. The Court applied the guidance in Nicholls v Nicholls [1997] 1 WLR 314. Because the appellant had a fair trial, the general contempt was proved by overwhelming evidence, and the defect caused no prejudice or injustice, the entire committal did not fail. The defective counts could be removed while preserving the valid committal.
4. The appellant had repeatedly breached injunctions and knowingly chosen accommodation adjoining the protected wife's home. His alcoholism and inability to control himself did not mitigate the contempt in those circumstances. The sentence was within the judge's discretion and was not excessive.
5. The separate contempt committed in the face of the court was not in issue. The Court ordered detailed assessment of the appellant's costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Derby County Court allowed to the limited extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the committal order were deleted; the remaining committal and 12-month sentence were upheld.
• Derby County Court: His Honour Judge Orrell made the committal order on 28 March 2001 and refused the application to purge contempt on 16 May 2001.