London Borough of Islington v Williams & Anor

In proceedings for contempt of court arising from breach of a collection order, the applicant bears the burden of proving the alleged contempt to the criminal standard. The court must be sure of the breach beyond reasonable doubt. Where an order requires a person who knows a child’s whereabouts, or information which might reasonably assist in locating the child, to disclose that information to the Tipstaff, deliberate failure to do so constitutes contempt.

The local authority applied to commit the child’s mother for contempt of court. A final Care Order had placed the child in residential care. After he went missing, the court made a recovery order and then a Collection Order requiring persons served with it, where able, to deliver the child to the Tipstaff or disclose information about his whereabouts and any other information which might reasonably assist in locating him.

The mother denied knowing where the child was and denied deliberately avoiding service and refusing to assist the police. The issue was whether the alleged breaches of paragraph 3(a) and (b) of the Collection Order were proved.

1. The local authority bore the burden of proof, and the applicable standard was the criminal standard. The court had to be sure of the contempt, namely satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The mother’s evidence that she did not know the child’s whereabouts and had taken no steps to contact him or the authorities was rejected. The court considered her conduct, her deliberate avoidance of service, and the evidence of the police and her daughter.
3. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the mother knew the child’s whereabouts and possessed information which might reasonably assist in locating him. She had failed to provide that information as required by paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Collection Order.
4. The contempt alleged under paragraphs 3(a) and (b) was therefore proved. The judgment supplied contains no separate sentencing or final committal order.