L v S

In committal proceedings for wilful non-compliance with court orders concerning the return of children, the court has a wide sentencing discretion. A continuing and significant breach may justify an immediate custodial sentence, although the maximum available sentence need not be imposed. Participation in proceedings may afford some mitigation, but its weight can be reduced by adverse findings about the contemnor’s credibility and conduct. The court may also permit disclosure of the committal sentence and translated judgment to proceedings in another jurisdiction where that would assist the children’s return.

The respondent father was sentenced following committal proceedings brought by the applicant mother concerning his failure to comply with orders requiring the return of their children to this jurisdiction. Two children had been returned, but the eldest remained abroad.

At an earlier hearing, the court had found to the criminal standard that the father had wilfully failed to comply with the relevant orders. The sentencing hearing was adjourned to allow related proceedings and opportunities for the eldest child to be returned. The central issues were the appropriate sanction, the significance of the father’s participation in the proceedings, and whether disclosure of the committal material to proceedings abroad should be permitted.

1. The respondent was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for continuing and significant wilful breaches of court orders. The court treated an immediate sentence as necessary, while declining to impose the maximum sentence of two years.
2. The court had a wide discretion in determining the sentence. The fact that a sanction would have substantial effect did not make the breach small or trivial. The failure to return the eldest child remained continuing and significant.
3. The father received some credit for participating in the proceedings. That mitigation was reduced by the court’s adverse findings concerning his credibility and truthfulness and by the findings made against him.
4. The court did not take account of the father’s decision not to attend the sentencing hearing, because he had given instructions and was represented. Nor did it rely on a further order made in related wardship proceedings, since no committal application concerning that order was before the court.
5. The court granted permission for the mother’s solicitors to disclose and transmit the committal sentence, order and translated judgment for use in proceedings outside this jurisdiction, because that disclosure might assist the foreign jurisdiction in securing the child’s return.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier committal findings and related wardship proceedings, but no appellate history is stated.