Parsons v Lares

In proceedings for breach of a non-molestation injunction, the complainant must prove the breach to the criminal standard. A judge may dispense with or deem service effective where the respondent has been told of the order and refuses to accept the document. An appellate court will not interfere with factual findings based on evidence properly available to the trial judge, particularly findings dependent on credibility. Judicial irritation over a mobile phone incident does not, without more, establish bias. A hearing is not unfair merely because the respondent lacks a copy of the order where he knows the allegations and the terms said to have been breached. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a Lambeth County Court order made by His Honour Judge Cox following an alleged breach of a non-molestation order made by a District Judge. The order recorded a breach, imposed three months’ imprisonment suspended until 25 September 2002, and continued the injunction subject to conditions.

The appeal alleged ineffective service, inability to prepare an adequate defence because the appellant did not have a copy of the order, apparent judicial bias arising from a mobile-phone incident, and unfairness contrary to natural justice and article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issues were whether the order had been sufficiently brought to the appellant’s attention, whether the hearing was fair, and whether the judge’s factual and credibility findings could be disturbed.

Mr Justice Wall gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Thorpe agreeing. The appeal was dismissed and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Standard of proof. The proceedings were quasi-criminal. The complainant therefore had to prove the alleged breach to the criminal standard, namely that the judge was sure of it. The lower judge had directed himself accordingly, and that direction was important because the case depended substantially on competing accounts and credibility.
2. Service. The judge was entitled to find that the complainant had told the appellant that a non-molestation order had been made and had explained its prohibitions, and that the appellant refused to accept service. In those circumstances, the judge had power under the county court rules to dispense with service and deem it effective.
3. Factual findings. The trial judge had heard and seen both parties and was entitled to prefer the complainant’s evidence. Where factual findings are based on available and appropriate material, the appellate court has no proper basis to interfere merely because another account is advanced.
4. Bias and fairness. Even if the mobile-phone incident had occurred as alleged, it showed no more than possible irritation and did not establish apparent bias. The hearing was not unfair: by the time of the hearing the appellant knew the allegations, knew which order he was said to have breached, and had the complainant’s detailed statement. The complaints under natural justice and article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights therefore failed.
5. The judge was entitled to find a deliberate breach and to impose the suspended three-month committal order. The order and the continuing injunction were left undisturbed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 24 June 2002, Mr Justice Wall dismissed the appeal, with Lord Justice Thorpe agreeing. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. Lambeth County Court: His Honour Judge Cox found the appellant in breach of a non-molestation order and imposed three months’ imprisonment, suspended until 25 September 2002, while continuing the injunction subject to conditions.