Salih v Sharif

In committal proceedings for repeated breaches of protective orders, immediate imprisonment may be justified where threats, harassment and intimidation demonstrate serious disregard for the court’s authority. A parent’s wish to secure contact with a child does not mitigate threats or violence against the other parent. Conduct occurring in the presence or hearing of children aggravates rather than mitigates the contempt. Sentences must remain proportionate to the maximum available and to the relationship between individual breaches. Closely connected breaches occurring over a short period should be considered together and may properly attract concurrent terms, while a later and distinct breach may warrant a consecutive sentence.

The husband appealed against an 18-month sentence imposed by His Honour Judge Copley on 22 September 2004 for four breaches of protective orders made by Her Honour Judge Dangor on 9 June 2004. The orders included occupation and non-molestation orders under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, together with a prohibited-steps order concerning the parties’ daughter.

The breaches involved threats to kill, threats of further harm, repeated telephone harassment and attendance at the wife’s workplace. A separate physical assault was awaiting proceedings in the Crown Court. The appeal raised the proportionality of the immediate custodial sentence, the relevance of the husband’s asserted motivation to obtain contact with his daughter, and whether the four breaches should have been sentenced consecutively.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed in part. The aggregate sentence was reduced from 18 months to 12 months’ imprisonment. There was no order for costs.
2. Immediate custody and aggravation. The husband’s conduct warranted immediate imprisonment. The threats and harassment were serious, repeated and accompanied by a cavalier disregard for court orders. His asserted motivation to obtain contact with his daughter was not mitigating. Violence or threats by one parent against the other in the presence or hearing of children were wholly unacceptable and aggravating.
3. Proportionality. The court recognised the seriousness of domestic violence and harassment, the cumulative effect of repeated breaches, and the husband’s previous breaches of orders and bail conditions. Six months for the breaches on 5 and 6 August was not wrong in principle. Nor was there a point of principle against three months for the breach on 7 August or six months for the later breach on 14 August.
4. Concurrent and consecutive terms. The breaches on 5, 6 and 7 August formed a closely connected series over three days and should have attracted concurrent sentences. The breach on 14 August occurred a week later and was properly treated separately with a consecutive term. The court substituted six months for the breaches on 5 and 6 August concurrently, three months for the breach on 7 August concurrently, and six months consecutively for the breach on 14 August.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 10 November 2004, allowed the appeal in part and substituted a total sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.
2. Willesden County Court: on 22 September 2004, His Honour Judge Copley imposed a total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for four breaches of the protective order.