Ford v Ford

In an appeal arising from repeated breaches of a domestic injunction, the court upheld the contempt finding but reduced an eight-month sentence to six months. An appellate court will not disturb a trial judge’s choice between conflicting accounts where the judge heard the evidence and reached a clear conclusion. Sentence must be assessed in the round. The court should consider the circumstances of the index breach, including premeditation and actual harm, alongside the offender’s history of harassment and disregard of court orders. A suspended term may be activated for a further breach. Where activation supplies the proportionate total sentence, no separate penalty need be imposed for the new breach.

Paul Martin Ford appealed to the Court of Appeal from the Bournemouth County Court, where he had been found in contempt for breaching an injunction protecting Suzanne Louise Ford. The injunction prohibited harassment, intimidation, violence, unauthorised communication and entry onto specified premises and roads. The breach concerned an alleged driving incident in which he followed and endangered Mrs Ford.

The county court imposed eight months’ imprisonment: two months for the new breach and six months consecutively by activating a suspended sentence imposed for earlier breaches. The central issues were whether the contempt finding was safe on the evidence and whether the resulting sentence was appropriate.

Scott Baker LJ gave the first judgment, with Carnwath LJ agreeing.

1. Contempt finding. The county court had to choose between wholly conflicting accounts. The judge heard the witnesses and concluded that Mrs Ford was telling the truth. That conclusion was unassailable on appeal. The contempt finding was therefore upheld.
2. Sentence. The total sentence of eight months was manifestly excessive. In assessing the appropriate total, the court considered that the index breach was not premeditated and caused neither collision nor injury. Against that, the appellant had engaged in a long-running course of harassment and intimidation and had repeatedly disregarded court orders. Imprisonment in domestic cases of this kind is imposed primarily to prevent repetition. The court also considered the sentencing comparison drawn from Hale v Tanner, particularly paragraph 38.
3. Mitigation and activation. The appellant’s period without an apparent breach, the effect of imprisonment on examinations at Oxford University and his father’s terminal illness had all been advanced below. The absence of detailed reference to those matters in the sentencing remarks did not show that they had been ignored. They were adequately reflected by reducing the total term to six months.
4. Disposition. No sufficient reason existed to reduce the sentence below six months or to withhold activation of the suspended term. The appeal against the contempt finding was dismissed. The sentence appeal was allowed by reducing the sentence to six months, activating the suspended sentence and imposing no separate penalty for the further breach. There was no order as to costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the contempt finding was dismissed. The sentence appeal was allowed in part, with the total sentence reduced to six months, the suspended sentence activated and no separate penalty imposed for the further breach.
• Bournemouth County Court: His Honour Judge Meston found the appellant in contempt and imposed eight months’ imprisonment, comprising two months for the index breach and six months by implementation of a suspended sentence.