Samira Addou v Sidali Bennabi

Committal proceedings may proceed in the respondent’s absence where the respondent has been properly served, had sufficient time to prepare, deliberately chose not to attend, and an adjournment is unlikely to secure attendance or representation. The court must apply the criminal standard of proof, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt, to each alleged breach. Imprisonment is not automatic. The sentence must reflect both the seriousness of the contempt and the objectives of marking disapproval and securing future compliance. Suspension may be appropriate where it is likely to promote compliance, particularly where the court’s primary objective is the return of a child.

The mother applied to commit the father to prison for breaches of orders requiring him to return their child, Yanis, from Algeria to England and Wales. Yanis was a ward of court. The father did not attend the committal hearing and was unrepresented, although the court found that he had received the hearing notice and relevant documents by email and had sufficient notice to prepare. The issues were whether the hearing could fairly proceed in his absence, whether the alleged breaches were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and what sanction was appropriate.

1. The hearing could proceed in the father’s absence. Applying the guidance in R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 and R v Purvis [2001] QB 862, the court considered service, notice, the absence of any explanation, waiver of the right to attend, the likelihood that an adjournment would secure attendance, disadvantage to the father, prejudice to the mother and child, and prejudice to the forensic process. The father had been properly served, knew of the hearing, had no sufficient reason for non-attendance, and had deliberately chosen not to engage.
2. Each relied-upon breach had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence established that the father had knowingly and deliberately failed to comply with successive orders requiring Yanis’s return to England and Wales. The mother therefore proved every allegation on which she relied.
3. The alleged passport and travel-document breach was not pursued as a committal ground. The court nevertheless considered it more likely than not that the father had obtained an alternative travel document in a different form of his name. That finding was part of the narrative and did not form the basis of the committal order.
4. The court applied the sentencing principles stated in Bailey v Bailey (Committal) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 5 and Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570. Imprisonment was appropriate, but its length had to reflect the seriousness of the breaches, the maximum available sentence, the context, and the objectives of punishment and securing compliance. The court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.
5. A fresh order was made requiring the father to return Yanis to England and Wales by 23.59 on 9 December 2022. The matter was to be restored within 48 hours of any return.