MB v GK

Where a respondent deliberately breaches mandatory orders requiring the return of a child, the court may make successive mandatory injunctions giving further opportunities for compliance. A proportionate, step-by-step approach may be appropriate, particularly where the respondent is warned of the consequences and given opportunities to obtain representation. Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Deliberate child abduction and continuing defiance of return orders are grave matters for sentencing. Reliance on the right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention cannot mitigate conduct which deliberately violates the other parent’s and child’s family life.

The applicant sought the committal of the respondent for contempt of three High Court orders requiring the return of their child, M, from Singapore to England. The court had previously determined that M was habitually resident in England and Wales and had made successive return orders, each accompanied by a penal notice. The respondent failed to return M, took no effective steps to secure his return, and made an unsuccessful without-notice application before another High Court judge seeking to undermine the orders. The central issues were whether the breaches were proved and what sentence was appropriate.

1. The respondent was in contempt of court for breaching the orders dated 14, 19 and 21 March 2014. The failure to return M, or cause his return, established the breaches beyond all reasonable doubt.
2. The successive mandatory orders were legally permissible. Applying Re W (Abduction: Committal) [2011] EWCA 1196, the court was entitled to make further orders notwithstanding earlier failures, because the respondent had been given further opportunities to comply and obtain legal representation. The approach was proportionate and step by step.
3. The respondent’s conduct was deliberate and organised. It included failing to take active steps against his parents, attempting without notice to undermine the High Court’s orders, and giving misleading accounts of his financial circumstances. These matters aggravated the contempt.
4. In sentencing, the court applied the approach in Kayani and Solliman [2011] EWCA Crim 2871. The contempt involved the flagrant and deliberate retention of a young child from the other parent. Reliance on the right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention was misconceived where that principle had itself been deliberately violated.
5. The respondent was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment: six months for breach of the first order, consecutive to concurrent 12-month sentences for breach of the orders dated 19 and 21 March.