London Borough of Harrow v Afzal & Ors

A person subject to an order requiring steps to secure a child’s return and disclosure of the child’s whereabouts commits a serious contempt by knowingly withholding material information and supporting the child’s continued absence from the jurisdiction. The court may impose immediate imprisonment where the breach is grave, particularly where it concerns a very young child. Good character, age, health and financial circumstances may mitigate sentence, but do not necessarily justify suspension. The contemnor’s sentence must reflect the seriousness of deliberate non-compliance and concealment.

The local authority was involved with the parents and their infant daughter because of longstanding drug-abuse concerns. The child had been living at the maternal grandparents’ home under an arrangement intended to protect her. She was removed to Spain by her parents during the early hours of 16 January 2014.

The court considered whether the maternal grandfather had breached an order requiring him to take all steps within his control to secure the child’s return to England and Wales and to provide the local authority with information about her whereabouts. Following an adjourned contempt hearing, the central issue was whether the grandfather knowingly assisted the child’s continued absence and withheld material evidence.

1. The maternal grandfather was found to be in contempt of court. The court rejected his evidence on several material matters, including his account of the child’s removal, his failure to disclose financial support sent to Spain, and his claimed inability to recall recent communications with his daughter.
2. The court concluded that he was deliberately lying to protect his daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, and to prevent the child’s whereabouts being discovered and the child being returned to England and Wales. It was satisfied to the criminal standard that he knew their location and was withholding highly material evidence from the court.
3. The court treated the breach as serious. The grandfather had not taken all steps within his control to secure the child’s return. Instead, his financial assistance positively supported the parents and child in remaining in Barcelona.
4. The court had regard to the guidance in Re A (Abduction: Contempt) [2008] EWCA Civ 1138. In light of the seriousness of the contempt, a custodial sentence was required.
5. A sentence of 28 days’ imprisonment was imposed. The court considered the grandfather’s good character, age, health and financial circumstances, but concluded that 28 days was the minimum appropriate sentence and that it should not be suspended. He was required to serve 14 days.