S (A Child), Re

A party subject to a continuing order protecting a child’s confidentiality must comply with it in substance. Publishing information identifying the child on websites in breach of that order constitutes contempt. An attempted removal of material from a foreign website does not necessarily cure the breach, particularly where the party asserts that the order has no application outside the United Kingdom. An appellate court will not interfere with a committal sanction that falls within the generous ambit of the first-instance judge’s discretion.

The mother appealed against a committal order made by Her Honour Judge Hughes QC on 28 April 2008. The order imposed 56 days’ imprisonment for contempt, suspended for 14 days and not to be activated if she removed references to, and information about, the child from specified internet sites by 4.30 pm on 13 May 2008.

The appeal was brought from the Principal Registry, Family Division. The mother did not participate in the hearing and left the court before it began. The central issues were whether the underlying orders remained in force, whether her internet publications constituted defiance of those orders, and whether the committal sanction was within the judge’s discretion.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The underlying order made by Singer J in February 2008 remained effective. A subsequent order made by HHJ Michael Horovitz QC had specifically drawn attention to its continuing effect.

2. The mother had defied the orders by posting information about the proceedings that specifically referred to the child on websites in various locations. The committal judge was therefore well-founded in finding contempt.

3. The court considered that an apparent instance of technical compliance did not answer the wider breach. The mother had written to an American website asking for removal of the prohibited information, but added a reservation asserting that United Kingdom jurisdiction did not apply in the United States unless an order had been made there. That conduct did not undermine the conclusion that the orders had been defied.

4. The 56-day suspended custodial sanction was manifestly within the generous ambit of the committal judge’s discretion. There was no basis for appellate interference, and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2008] EWCA Civ 1652, the appeal against the committal order was dismissed.
• Principal Registry, Family Division: Her Honour Judge Hughes QC made the committal order on 28 April 2008, imposing 56 days’ imprisonment suspended on conditions relating to removal of internet material.