Egeneonu v Egeneonu

In contempt proceedings arising from child abduction, deliberate and repeated assistance to the abducting parent, particularly involving lies to the court and breach of an earlier suspended sentence, may justify immediate custody and a substantial global sentence.

On appeal, the sentence will stand where it falls within the range properly open to the sentencing judge. The judge must consider relevant mitigation, but may give limited weight to family hardship, admissions and later assistance where those matters were considered and the circumstances were not unusual. A repeat contemnor cannot expect the same leniency previously shown.

Three children were unlawfully retained in Nigeria by their father, and repeated orders sought their return. The appellant was found to have committed six further contempts, including lying to the court, causing false evidence to be produced and breaching court orders. On 5 October 2018 Cobb J sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment: [2018] EWHC 3029 (Fam).

He appealed only against the length of the sentence. He argued that insufficient weight had been given to the impact on his family, his later efforts to help locate the children and his admissions. The central issue was whether the sentence was excessive or outside the range available to the sentencing judge.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant did not challenge the findings of contempt or the imposition of immediate custody, and the Court of Appeal held that the judge was fully entitled to impose such a sentence.
2. Seriousness and aggravation. Persons who assist abductors and place themselves in contempt of court should normally expect immediate imprisonment because of the severe harm caused by child abduction. The lengthy separation of the children from their mother, the prolonged and determined disobedience, repeated lies in court and the previous suspended sentence were significant aggravating features.
3. Mitigation. The sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s admissions, his more recent efforts to assist in recovering the children, his support for Chief Mbaeri’s intervention, his limited influence and the effect of imprisonment on his family. He was entitled to give the family circumstances little weight because they were not strikingly unusual, particularly since similar personal mitigation had previously resulted in a suspended sentence. The appellant therefore knew the risk created by continuing to lie and disobey orders.
4. Appellate assessment. The principal elements were three months for lying about the abducting father’s intentions, three months for misleading the court about information that might identify the children’s whereabouts, and one month for complicity in producing a bogus statement. Other contempts attracted no additional or only concurrent penalty. The global sentence was within the range properly open to the judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — appeal against the length of the sentence dismissed.
• Family Division — Cobb J sentenced the appellant to seven months’ imprisonment for six contempts on 5 October 2018: [2018] EWHC 3029 (Fam).