Gull v Gull

In sentencing for repeated deliberate breaches of a non-molestation order, the court must mark its disapproval and promote future compliance, but the sentence must remain proportionate to the individual breach and offender. A term near the maximum may be excessive where the breach involved no violence or threat and the offender has significant vulnerability, low intelligence and learning difficulties, even if he knowingly disobeyed and previous sanctions failed. The appellate court may substitute a shorter custodial term and identify practical release planning to reduce the risk of renewed breach.

Iqbal Gull appealed against a Bradford County Court order committing him to 21 months’ imprisonment for breaching a non-molestation order made for the protection of his mother, Khumza Gull. The breach occurred immediately after his release from prison and formed part of a lengthy history of breaches. The lower court accepted that he had low intelligence, learning difficulties and difficulty functioning independently, but considered a suspended or shorter sentence ineffective. The central issue was whether the sentence was excessive in light of the non-violent nature of the breach, his vulnerability and the previous history of disobedience.

1. Appeal and sentence. The appeal was allowed in part. The 21-month sentence was excessive and was replaced by a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.
2. Sentencing principle. Court orders must be obeyed. Repeated and deliberate breaches properly attract sanctions marking the court’s disapproval and designed to secure future compliance. The history of previous breaches was therefore relevant, and imprisonment was inevitable.
3. Proportionality. The sentence nevertheless had to reflect the particular breach and the offender’s circumstances. Mr Gull was of low intelligence, had learning difficulties close to but below the threshold of disability, and had a vulnerable personality. On the occasion in question he returned to the family home but neither engaged in nor threatened violence. A sentence nearly reaching the two-year maximum was excessive in those circumstances, notwithstanding his knowledge of the injunction and the failure of earlier sanctions.
4. Release planning. The court considered that reducing the sentence alone would not address the substantial risk of renewed breach. It expressed the strong view that Mr Gull’s advisers should formulate, with Bradford Social Services, a plan for managing his release into the community. Stable accommodation and appropriate support were required, and community leaders might assist through mediation.
5. Future statutory regime. The court noted that future orders would be made under Family Law Act 1996, section 42A, inserted by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Breaches would thereby be criminalised and a wider range of sentencing options would become available.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 900, the sentence imposed below was varied from 21 months to 12 months’ imprisonment.
• Bradford County Court: On 20 March 2007, His Honour Judge Gullick committed Iqbal Gull to 21 months’ imprisonment for breach of a non-molestation order.