Legge v Legge

When sentencing for contempt by breach of a non-molestation order, the custodial term must be fixed without regard to whether it will be suspended. A history of breaches is relevant context, and the sentence must mark the court’s disapproval of flouting its orders. The sentence must nevertheless bear a reasonable relationship to the seriousness of the actual breach. Previous success of shorter suspended sentences and the absence of violence or threats may show that a longer term is manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed against a decision of Middlesbrough County Court on 11 July 2006, by which he was committed for contempt for nine months, suspended until 7 April 2008, following his admitted breach of a non-molestation order obtained by his mother. The breach involved attending her home, banging on a window and trying the door while looking for his brother. The appellant had a substantial history of similar breaches, but earlier shorter suspended sentences had secured compliance. The central issues were whether the judge had separately considered the sentence length and its suspension, and whether nine months was manifestly excessive.

The appeal was allowed to the extent that the custodial term was reduced from nine months to five months. The sentence remained suspended on the same basis as the original order. Lord Justice Keene gave the judgment and Lord Justice Thorpe agreed.

1. Length and suspension. The Court followed the principle identified in Hale v Tanner [2000] 1 WLR 2377 that the length of a prison term for contempt must be decided without reference to whether it is to be suspended. The judge appeared to have run those matters together, although that did not by itself determine the appeal.
2. Proportionality and history. The ultimate question was whether the nine-month term was merited on the facts and was manifestly excessive. The appellant’s history of breaches was a legitimate part of the context. It could not, however, displace the requirement that the sentence bear some reasonable relationship to the seriousness of the actual breach.
3. Relevant considerations. The court’s disapproval of flouting a court order was an appropriate sentencing consideration and affected the length of sentence. The effectiveness of significantly shorter suspended terms was also relevant to the deterrent requirement. On the occasion in question there had been no violence or threat to any person.
4. Application. Although the history justified a sentence more severe than the isolated breach might have warranted, nine months was manifestly excessive. Five months was sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 October 2006, allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the custodial term from nine months to five months, with the suspension continuing on the same basis.
2. Middlesbrough County Court: On 11 July 2006, HHJ Walford committed the appellant for contempt for nine months, suspended until 7 April 2008, following his admitted breach of a non-molestation order.