A (A Child)

A custodial sentence for contempt will stand on appeal where it falls within the broad ambit of the sentencing judge’s discretion and is not manifestly excessive. Deliberate obstruction of court-ordered contact, repeated failure to comply with clear return orders, and dishonest or inadequate evidence may justify immediate imprisonment. A judge assessing mitigation may draw a modest inference about family resources from limited circumstantial indicators, particularly where the contemnor’s own financial evidence is inadequate or unreliable. The appellate court will give substantial weight to the first-instance judge’s findings about the contemnor’s credibility and integrity.

The mother removed her three-year-old son to Nigeria without the father’s consent, frustrating existing contact arrangements. The child was later made a ward of court, and the High Court made repeated orders requiring his return, backed by clear warnings of imprisonment. The mother admitted breach but relied on her alleged inability to meet the cost of returning the child.

Her Honour Judge Darwall-Smith imposed an immediate custodial sentence of ten months, indicating that approximately five months would probably be served. The mother appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the judge had wrongly relied on findings concerning the financial position of the maternal grandfather.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. Sentence. The mother had deliberately removed the child from the court’s reach and from his relationship with his father. She then failed to comply with repeated and unequivocal orders requiring his return. The sentencing judge had found that the mother was not truthful, had provided wholly inadequate information about her finances, had made no real effort to obtain full-time employment, and had failed to pursue loan facilities that might have assisted in returning the child. Those findings were central to the assessment of culpability and mitigation.
2. Appellate restraint. In light of those findings, an immediate custodial sentence was plainly appropriate. A sentence of ten months fell within the broad ambit of the judge’s discretion and could not be characterised as manifestly excessive.
3. Financial inference. The judge was entitled to draw a modest inference that the maternal grandfather’s family was not penniless from the available indications, including his status as a chief, his profession as a barrister, his use of headed paper and the nature of a family invitation. The judge did not make an unsupported finding of precise wealth. The inference was open on the evidence and could not successfully be challenged.

The order imposing the sentence was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the ten-month custodial sentence.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Her Honour Judge Darwall-Smith imposed an immediate custodial sentence of ten months for admitted contempt arising from breach of orders requiring the child’s return.