Hashimi v Hashimi

Proceedings for contempt based on an allegedly false statement of truth in family proceedings may be brought only by the Attorney General or with the court’s prior permission. That requirement is mandatory and is an important safeguard, not a procedural formality. An application issued without the required permission must be dismissed. The court may also dismiss an application where, even if permission were granted, the proposed committal proceedings have low prospects of success and raise substantial proportionality and resource concerns. A fresh order requiring clear, truthful answers on oath or affirmation may be made under the inherent jurisdiction, even where the child is not made a ward of court.

The applicant sought to commit the respondent for contempt of court. The application alleged that he had filed a false statement of truth in response to an order requiring information about the whereabouts and welfare of their child. The respondent argued that he had complied with the order and that the alleged dishonesty could not be proved to the criminal standard.

The court identified a separate procedural defect: the application had been issued without the prior permission required for proceedings concerning a false statement of truth. The central issues were whether that defect required dismissal and whether the proposed committal proceedings had sufficient prospects of success to justify continuation.

1. Dismissal of committal application. The application was dismissed for all time. It had been issued without the prior permission of the court and was not brought by the Attorney General.
2. Mandatory permission requirement. Rule 17.6(2) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 provides that proceedings concerning a false statement of truth may be brought only by the Attorney General or with the court’s permission. The word “only” makes the requirement mandatory. The court could not overlook the absence of prior permission (paras [26]–[37]).
3. Permission is a substantive safeguard. The supporting evidence must identify the alleged false statement, explain why it is false and why the maker knew it was false, and address whether committal proceedings are appropriate having regard to the overriding objective, including proportionality, expense and court resources (paras [29]–[36]).
4. Concurrent merits ground. The judge made no definitive ruling on whether the respondent had literally complied with the earlier order or whether dishonesty could be proved to the criminal standard. However, the proposed committal proceedings had low prospects of success. The application was therefore dismissed on that concurrent ground as well (paras [40]–[45]).
5. Fresh order and wardship. The court made a fresh order under its inherent jurisdiction requiring true and honest answers by affidavit or affirmation. A statement of truth alone would not suffice. The child ceased to be a ward of court because the court could not realistically make decisions about a child whose whereabouts were unknown, while the court continued to assert its inherent jurisdiction concerning the child’s whereabouts and wellbeing (paras [47]–[53]).