London Borough of Ealing v Connors

A person subject to a collection order must provide all information within their knowledge or understanding that may reasonably assist in locating children. Deliberately withholding such information constitutes contempt where the breach is proved to the criminal standard. The court may impose immediate imprisonment where the breach is serious, continued, and has obstructed the protection of children. In assessing sentence, the court must consider mitigation, including remorse, cultural background, personal circumstances and time already spent in custody, but those matters do not justify disobedience of court orders. A contemnor may purge the contempt at any time by apologising and providing the information necessary to secure the children’s recovery.

The local authority obtained emergency protection orders, recovery orders, interim care orders and subsequently a collection order concerning two children whose whereabouts were unknown. The respondent mother had previously cared for the children and was found to possess, or be able to obtain, information enabling their location. She gave inconsistent accounts, failed to produce the children and did not provide reliable information to the Tipstaff. The issue was whether she was in contempt of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the collection order and, if so, what sentence should be imposed.

1. The mother was in contempt of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the collection order. The court was satisfied so that it was sure that she knew where the children were, or knew how they could be located, and that she could cause them to be produced.

2. The applicable standard of proof was the criminal standard. The court rejected the mother’s claim that she had provided all information available to her. Her inconsistent accounts, her acceptance that she could have recovered the children, and counsel’s statement that the children would be produced if she gave permission demonstrated that their production remained within her control.

3. The breach included a continuing failure to provide information about the children’s whereabouts. The mother’s opposition to the children being placed in care did not excuse disobedience of the court’s orders. The court also rejected the application to adjourn pending further evidence from a family member.

4. In sentencing, the court considered the guidance in Hale v Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879, together with remorse, cultural background, personal difficulties, family circumstances, practical hardship and three days already spent in custody. Those factors did not outweigh the seriousness of preventing the court from locating children.

5. The least sentence the court could impose was 28 days’ imprisonment, including the time already spent on remand. Suspension was inappropriate because there had been no recent co-operation or reliable information. The sentence was immediate, but the mother could return to court at any time to purge her contempt by apologising and providing the necessary information.