P (A Child)

In committal proceedings for breach of a child-contact order, the court may proceed in the respondent’s absence where that course is appropriate in the circumstances viewed as a whole. Relevant matters include proper notice, the opportunity to obtain advice and attend, the explanation for absence, and the respondent’s previous conduct in the proceedings. A judge must deal with committal formally and give clear reasons, especially when the respondent is absent. However, failure to express reasons formally will not necessarily invalidate the order where the reasons are objectively clear and no injustice has resulted. A suspended custodial sentence may be used to secure compliance where repeated breaches make enforcement necessary.

The mother appealed against an order made by His Honour Judge Michael Taylor at the Teeside Combined Court Centre on 24 October 2006. The order imposed seven days’ imprisonment for contempt, suspended on compliance with an earlier order requiring the mother to facilitate weekend contact between the child and her father.

The mother had failed to provide contact on four successive weekends. She did not attend the committal hearing, stating through counsel that she had no child-minding arrangements. The judge refused an adjournment and made the suspended committal order. The appeal concerned whether proceeding in her absence and refusing an adjournment denied her a fair hearing, and whether the judge’s failure to give formal reasons invalidated the order.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the suspended seven-day committal order.
2. A court may deal with a committal application in the respondent’s absence in an appropriate case. The appropriateness of doing so must be assessed in the factual context as a whole, rather than in isolation. The judge may take account of the history of the proceedings and the respondent’s previous attendance and compliance.
3. On the facts, the judge was entitled to refuse an adjournment. The mother had received 12 days’ notice of the hearing and had been told that attendance was required. She had had an opportunity to obtain legal advice, prepare evidence and make child-care arrangements. The history included repeated failures to attend hearings and comply with orders. There was no evidence that physical circumstances prevented attendance, including attendance with the child if necessary. Counsel had been able to explain the position and was not prevented from making further submissions.
4. Committal proceedings must be dealt with formally and correctly. A judge should state, albeit shortly, the reasons for the decision, particularly where the respondent is absent and where imprisonment is imposed or suspended. The judge’s treatment of this case was excessively summary and the lack of formally expressed reasons was properly criticised.
5. Nevertheless, the reasons for refusing the adjournment and making the order were clear from the history and the exchanges at the hearing. The breaches were undisputed, and the suspended custodial order was plainly intended as the minimum measure necessary to secure compliance and promote the child’s welfare. No injustice had resulted. Neuberger LJ and Wilson LJ agreed with the President.

• Teeside Combined Court Centre: His Honour Judge Michael Taylor made a suspended seven-day committal order on 24 October 2006 for breach of a child-contact order.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the mother’s appeal was dismissed and the order upheld.