Aquilina v Acquilina

When imposing imprisonment for breach of a family injunction, the court must balance the coercive purpose of securing future compliance against the punitive purpose of marking contempt. Future compliance is ordinarily the primary objective, although repeated disobedience merits punishment.

The sentence must reflect the gravity and flagrancy of the particular breach. Imprisonment should be as short as the circumstances permit. An appellate court should respect the sentencing judge’s wide discretion, but may intervene where the balance has been struck incorrectly and the sentence is manifestly excessive.

A husband appealed against an order of the Cardiff County Court sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment for breaching an injunction which prohibited him from coming within 200 metres of the home occupied by his wife and children. He had previously committed breaches, received a suspended sentence of 56 days and subsequently served that sentence.

The latest breach consisted of driving past the home at night. It involved no stopping, threats, gestures, abuse or violence. The central issue was whether six months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive, having regard to the need both to punish contempt and to secure future compliance with the injunction.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of six months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It was quashed and a sentence of three months substituted, resulting in the husband’s immediate release: per Ward LJ, Clarke LJ agreeing (paras [12]–[14]).
2. A judge sentencing for contempt has a wide discretion. An appellate court should not readily interfere or merely adjust the sentence because it would have selected a different term. Intervention was nevertheless justified where the judge had struck the relevant balance incorrectly (paras [10]–[12]).
3. Committal for breach of an injunction has both coercive and punitive elements. In a family case, securing future compliance is ordinarily a more valuable objective than punishing contumacy or vindicating the court’s authority. Repeated breach remains deserving of punishment, but the judge had given undue weight to that consideration (paras [10]–[11]).
4. The court must assess the flagrancy of the contempt by reference to the gravity of the particular breach. Although every contempt is serious and this was a third breach, the conduct consisted only of driving past the home at night. There was no stopping, gesticulation, abuse or violence. It therefore fell at the minor end of the range of breaches (para [12]).
5. Clarke LJ added that every sentence of imprisonment should, in principle, be as short as possible consistently with the circumstances. Three months was sufficient in this case (para [14]). The court took account of the sentencing guidance in Hale v Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879 (para [7]).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The six-month sentence was quashed and a three-month sentence substituted: [2004] EWCA Civ 504.
2. Cardiff County Court: His Honour Judge Masterman found the husband in breach of the injunction and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment for contempt.