Patel v Patel

In sentencing for repeated breaches of protective injunctions, imprisonment should be no longer than necessary in the circumstances. The court may assess seriousness in its full context, including the cumulative effect of successive breaches, their proximity to a suspended committal order, and the contemnor’s disregard for the protection it afforded. A breach that appears less serious in isolation may justify a substantial consecutive term. Denial and lack of remorse are relevant. Family responsibilities and medical conditions may mitigate, but health must be a sufficiently cogent reason to displace immediate custody otherwise appropriate. A sentence activating a suspended term and imposing a further consecutive term was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant husband appealed against a committal order made by HHJ Hayward Smith QC on 15 January 2007. The judge found six breaches of protective injunctions proved and activated an earlier suspended four-month committal order, adding six months consecutively, making ten months’ imprisonment. The breaches followed a serious history of domestic violence and occurred shortly after the suspended order had been made. The appeal challenged the length of the sentence, the assessment of the incident as serious, and the balance between securing future compliance and punishment. An application was also made for an extension of time.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The court stated that, even if an extension of time were granted, the appeal would fail.
2. Sentencing principle. The court applied the proposition in Aquilina v Aquilina [2004] EWCA Civ 504, paragraph 14, that imprisonment should in principle be as short as possible consistently with the circumstances of the particular case.
3. Assessment of seriousness. The history of previous breaches, the appellant’s denial and lack of remorse, and the short period between the suspended committal order and the later breaches were relevant. The cumulative effect of the incidents was important. Above all, the wife was entitled to regard herself as protected by the suspended order, which the appellant had plainly disregarded. The later incident could not therefore be assessed in isolation.
4. Mitigation. The presence of the parties’ son, the appellant’s medical condition, the absence of a weapon or physical injury, and his initial presence by invitation were capable of being relevant. The invitation ceased when the wife asked him to leave. On the information available, the medical evidence was not sufficiently cogent to make immediate custody inappropriate.
5. The judge was entitled to activate the earlier four-month sentence and to impose a further consecutive six-month term. The resulting ten-month sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• High Court of Justice, Principal Registry of the Family Division: HHJ Hayward Smith QC found six breaches of protective injunctions proved on 15 January 2007, activated an earlier suspended four-month committal order and imposed a further consecutive six-month term.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the ten-month sentence was dismissed. The court indicated that an extension of time would not affect the result.