Davies, Re

A person subject to a location order must cooperate with the court and disclose information within their knowledge about the whereabouts of a child and relevant parties. Deliberately withholding that information, misleading the court about available means of contact, and lying on oath may amount to contempt of court. Where contempt is established, sentencing may be adjourned to allow the contemnors to obtain representation. The court may maintain custody and order production for the sentencing hearing, while allowing an opportunity to purge the contempt by providing the withheld information.

The proceedings concerned Alice Davies, a child who had left the jurisdiction with her mother after the breakdown of the parents’ relationship and a contact order in favour of the father. The mother’s whereabouts were unknown. The matter was transferred to the High Court and a location order was made.

The maternal grandmother, grandfather and aunt were required to provide information about the whereabouts of the mother and child. After they repeatedly denied knowledge of relevant information, they were arrested and brought before the court. The central issue was whether their evidence and conduct demonstrated deliberate non-cooperation with the location order and contempt of court.

1. The court found, to the criminal standard of proof, that the maternal grandmother, grandfather and aunt had lied in their evidence and had withheld information about the whereabouts of the mother and child.
2. The grandmother had falsely denied possessing a means of contacting her daughter, despite having communicated with her by text and knowing that it was night where she was. The court inferred that she knew precisely where her daughter was but refused to disclose it. The grandfather had falsely denied directing the mother to leave the country and was found to possess information which he refused to provide. The aunt gave inconsistent accounts about recent contact with her sister and was also found to be lying.
3. The court concluded that all three witnesses knew where the mother and child were and had the means to contact them. They deliberately refused to assist the court or the Tipstaff in securing the child’s return to the jurisdiction. Their conduct constituted contempt of court.
4. Sentencing was adjourned until 30 October 2013 to enable the three contemnors to obtain legal representation. They were remanded in custody and production orders were made to secure their attendance. Each was entitled to apply to purge the contempt by disclosing the information which the court found they possessed.