Sanchez v Oboz (Sentencing for Contempt of Court)

Imprisonment is not an automatic consequence of breaching a family court order. The court must consider the circumstances and the contemnor’s opportunity to explain or purge the contempt. An immediate custodial sentence may nevertheless be justified where the breach is deliberate, grave and continuing, particularly where the contemnor openly defies the court, fails to return a child, and offers neither explanation nor mitigation. Effective service remains essential before committal proceedings can fairly proceed against an absent respondent. A sentence may mark the intrinsic gravity of the breach while allowing the contemnor an opportunity to seek to purge the contempt.

The mother applied to commit the father and paternal grandmother to prison for breaching orders requiring them to return the child, Isabella, from Poland to England after her unlawful retention there. At an earlier hearing, the court determined the father’s breaches in his absence but adjourned sentence to allow him to obtain representation, return the child, or provide an explanation. The grandmother had not been effectively served and her case was adjourned.

Despite further notification attempts, neither respondent attended and the child had not been returned. The court therefore had to determine the father’s sentence and whether it was fair to proceed against the grandmother in her absence.

1. Father’s committal. The court was satisfied that the father knew of the orders requiring Isabella’s return and had deliberately chosen to defy them. He had not returned the child, attended court, offered an explanation, or provided mitigation.
2. Sentencing principle. Having regard to the guidance in Hale v Tanner [2000] 2 FLR 879, imprisonment was not treated as the automatic punishment for breach of a family court order. In the circumstances, however, the continuing and wilful retention of the child, coupled with the father’s defiance of the court, made immediate imprisonment entirely justified.
3. Gravity of the breach. The court reaffirmed its observations in LBTH v Ali [2014] EWHC 845 (Fam), reported at [2015] 1 FLR 205, concerning the serious emotional and developmental harm caused when children are removed from their home environment. The father’s conduct was characterised as child abduction and emotional abuse.
4. Sentence. The father was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Once apprehended, he would serve half the sentence in custody and could apply to purge his contempt.
5. Grandmother. The court considered it unjust to proceed against the paternal grandmother because she had not yet been effectively served. The mother was given a further four weeks to attempt service, after which the matter would be re-listed.

The judgment followed an earlier hearing in the same proceedings at which the father’s breaches were determined but sentence was adjourned, while the application against the grandmother was deferred because service was defective.