London Borough of Richmond v Howell

A person alleged to have breached a court order must be proved to have acted in wilful breach. The court must be sure of the breach to the criminal standard. Where the evidence shows that the person knows, or can promptly establish, how to comply with the order but gives unreliable or inadequate assistance, the court may find contempt. A committal order may be made where the breach is clear and continuing. The contemnor should be given a practical opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with the order or providing the information necessary for compliance.

The applicant local authority alleged that the respondent mother had breached an order requiring her to surrender her child’s passport and her own passports and travel documents to the Tipstaff. The order had been made in care proceedings because of concerns that the child might be removed from the jurisdiction.

The mother said that the passports were held elsewhere but provided vague and changing information about their whereabouts and the persons who might possess them. The court heard her evidence and considered whether she was genuinely unable to assist with recovering the passports. The central issues were whether the breach was wilful, whether the mother remained able to secure compliance, and what disposal was appropriate.

1. Contempt established. The mother knew of the order requiring delivery of the passports and had not complied with it. The issue was whether her failure was wilful and whether she could assist in securing compliance.
2. The court applied the criminal standard of proof. It had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and so that it was sure, that the mother remained in breach and was responsible for that breach.
3. The mother’s evidence about the passports was vague and inherently unreliable. By contrast, she was able to recall other events in considerable detail. The court rejected her claim that she could not identify the passports’ whereabouts or take steps to require their release. It concluded that she knew where they were, or at least could immediately procure their delivery through third parties.
4. The failure to provide the required assistance was therefore a wilful breach of paragraph 1 of the order and constituted contempt of court.
5. There was a continuing risk to the child if the mother returned home without restriction, because she had the ability to retrieve the passports. A seven-day committal order was consequently made. The mother was to be produced at the forthcoming final hearing in the care proceedings if necessary.
6. The court expressly preserved the opportunity to purge the contempt. The mother could obtain remission during the ensuing period by providing all information capable of assisting recovery of the passports and by securing compliance with the order.