London Borough of Islington v Ramsey

In committal proceedings for breach of an order requiring disclosure of a missing child’s whereabouts, the alleging party bears the burden of proof. The court must be sure of the breach, applying the criminal standard of proof. A finding of contempt may be based on the court’s assessment of the evidence and surrounding circumstances. Where the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent knows the child’s whereabouts and deliberately withholds that information, the disclosure obligation is breached.

The local authority applied to commit Eddie Ramsey for contempt. An order required him, if unable to deliver his 13-year-old son to the Tipstaff, to provide information known to him which might reasonably assist in locating the child. The child had gone missing from care and remained missing for approximately three weeks. After being served with the order, Mr Ramsey first said that the child was safe, but then said that he did not know where he was. The central issue was whether the local authority had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Ramsey knew the child’s whereabouts and had deliberately failed to disclose them.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The local authority bore the burden of proving the alleged contempt. The applicable standard was the criminal standard: the court had to be sure, or satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the order had been breached.
2. Knowledge and deliberate non-disclosure. The court rejected the submission that the case rested merely on suspicion. Having regard to Mr Ramsey’s close relationship with his son, his initial statement that the child was safe, and the inherent difficulty of a 13-year-old surviving alone without assistance, the court was sure that Mr Ramsey knew where the child was and deliberately withheld that information.
3. Credibility. The court rejected Mr Ramsey’s evidence that he did not know the child’s whereabouts. His evidence was found to be untruthful to the criminal standard.
4. Disposition. Mr Ramsey was found in contempt of paragraph 2 of the order made by Holman J on 3 April 2013. No sentence or further consequential order was stated in the judgment.

Not stated in the judgment.