H v H

In family contempt proceedings, sentence length depends on the court’s objectives: marking disapproval of disobedience and securing future compliance. The seriousness of the breach must be assessed both intrinsically and in that wider context. There is no tariff for particular types of contempt because family cases involve varied facts, continuing relationships and competing sensitivities. Where breaches are persistent and wilfully defy court orders, a coercive element may properly be reflected in the sentence. Harm caused to children by continued unauthorised contact, harassment or boundary violations is also a significant factor. A sentence will stand unless wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The father appealed against sentences totalling ten months’ imprisonment imposed by Mr Justice Munby following findings that he had breached orders regulating contact with, and protecting, his three children and their mother. The breaches included unauthorised approaches to the children, direct communications and entry into an exclusion zone. The father argued that the judge had placed excessive weight on the lengthy history of litigation and previous breaches, and that the individual acts were not among the most serious forms of contempt.

He also sought permission to appeal out of time against an earlier committal order made by Mr Justice Wilson on 7 November 1997, although an appeal against that order had already been dismissed by consent. The central issues were the proper approach to sentencing for family contempt and whether the earlier committal could be reopened.

1. Earlier committal. The application for permission to appeal out of time against the committal order of 7 November 1997 was refused. There had already been an appeal to the Court of Appeal, dismissed by consent, and the proposed challenge was not a second appeal within the proper meaning of that term. In any event, there was no justification for extending time so long after the events.
2. Sentencing principles. Following Hale v Tanner [2000] 3 FCR 62; [2000] 2 FLR 879, the length of a committal must reflect both the court’s disapproval of disobedience and the need to secure future compliance. There is no tariff for particular forms of family contempt.
3. The distinction identified in Lightfoot v Lightfoot [1989] 1 FLR 414 remained relevant. Contempt may attract a purely punitive sentence for a completed breach, or a coercive sentence where the contemnor persistently refuses to comply with court orders. A coercive sentence also contains a punitive element.
4. The relevant circumstances included the father’s persistent defiance of repeated orders and warnings, together with the continuing harm caused to the children by his conduct. The breaches were serious because the communications and approaches were unwanted and undermined protections imposed for the children’s welfare. The sentences, considered individually and cumulatively, were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
5. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed. Lady Justice Hale delivered the principal judgment; Sir Philip Otton agreed, and Lord Justice Waller agreed without addition.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal against the sentences imposed by Mr Justice Munby dismissed. Application for permission to appeal out of time against the committal order of 7 November 1997 dismissed.
• High Court, Family Division: Mr Justice Munby imposed fines and imprisonment totalling ten months for breaches of protective and contact orders. Earlier, Mr Justice Wilson had imposed a four-month sentence for breaches found on 7 November 1997.