J-C (A Child)

In committal proceedings, the court must apply the criminal standard of proof, but procedural and drafting imperfections do not automatically defeat a committal. The appellate question is whether the judge, on the evidence and proper assessment of credibility, was entitled to find the alleged breaches proved. A technical error in an injunction will not assist a contemnor where the order was validly made and served, its meaning was clear, and the error caused no unfairness. Dates, times and descriptive details need not be exact where the essential breach is proved with sufficient certainty. Findings of fact will stand where the judge directed himself correctly, considered the allegations separately, and reached conclusions open on the evidence.

Mr J-C appealed against a committal order made by HHJ Darroch in Norwich County Court on 26 June 2007. The committal proceedings concerned alleged breaches of a non-molestation and occupation order made under Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, with an attached power of arrest.

The judge rejected six of eight allegations but found two breaches proved to the criminal standard: attendance within the exclusion zone accompanied by an abusive remark, and a threat made during a chance meeting. He imposed concurrent terms of 28 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The appeal challenged the judge’s findings about background violence, the adequacy and accuracy of the notice to show cause and injunction, and the treatment of evidential discrepancies and an alleged alibi.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge gave himself the correct direction that the criminal standard applied and that he had to be sure. He applied that standard carefully, rejecting the more serious allegations where the evidence raised only suspicion.
2. A finding about background violence and the complainant’s fear was permissible as part of the judge’s assessment of credibility and the evidence. The appellant had been represented, the issue had been put to him in cross-examination, and the original order and power of arrest had not been appealed. The possible use of the findings in care proceedings did not make them an Article 6 breach.
3. The mistaken reference in the injunction to Beavans Road rather than Beavans Court was a technical slip. It could have been corrected under the slip rule, the notice to show cause identified the correct address, and the appellant plainly understood the prohibition. A contemnor could not rely on such a slip where it caused no unfairness.
4. The discrepancies about the date, time, jacket colour and other evidence did not undermine the finding concerning the exclusion zone. Applying the guidance in the Turnbull case, the judge was entitled to find that, within a few days of the order, the appellant had attended the property and used the abusive language. The notice alleged that breach and the evidence supported it.
5. The finding concerning the threat at the housing office was a straightforward credibility assessment open to the judge on the evidence. The police record did not contradict it. Hammerton v Hammerton was materially different because the judge there had seriously intermingled contact and committal applications; that did not occur here.

The committal sentences were within the judge’s discretion if the breaches were established. The order was therefore: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the appeal from the committal order made by HHJ Darroch in Norwich County Court on 26 June 2007 was dismissed. The court upheld the two findings of contempt and the resulting order.