Manchester City Council v Maryan Yusef & Ors.

A committal hearing may proceed in the respondent’s absence where the respondent has been properly served, had sufficient time to prepare, deliberately refuses to attend, and further delay is unlikely to secure attendance or representation. The court must nevertheless apply heightened caution because committal proceedings are criminal in nature and imprisonment engages the presumption of innocence and fair-hearing rights.

Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Sentencing must be proportionate, mark the court’s disapproval and seek future compliance. Imprisonment is not automatic and is appropriate only where no reasonable alternative exists. A contemnor’s existing imprisonment does not necessarily prevent compliance with an order requiring information or action.

Manchester City Council sought the committal of Farad Abdi for alleged breaches of orders requiring him to secure the return of his four children from Somalia to England and Wales and to provide PIN numbers and passwords for mobile telephones held by the local authority.

The father was serving a sentence for earlier contempt. He had been personally served with the application and adjourned hearing notice, but deliberately refused prison transport to court and was unrepresented despite repeated opportunities to obtain legal representation. The issues were whether the court should proceed in his absence, whether the alleged breaches were proved, and what sentence and further orders were appropriate.

1. Proceeding in absence. Applying the factors summarised in Sanchez v Oboz, the court proceeded with the committal hearing in the father’s absence. He had proper and sufficient notice, had been given time to prepare, had advanced no credible reason for refusing to attend, and had knowingly waived his right to be present. A further adjournment was unlikely to secure attendance and would materially prejudice the children and the forensic process.
2. The father was not unduly prejudiced. The alleged breaches concerned objective matters: whether the children had been returned and whether the PIN information had been provided. The local authority did not rely on evidence from the mother, and there were no relevant facts requiring her cross-examination. The court had already determined the factual issue of the children’s whereabouts; any challenge to that finding lay by appeal.
3. Contempt proved. The orders were clear, had been made in the father’s presence and had been served on him. The local authority proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had failed to secure the children’s return by the specified date and had failed to provide the PIN numbers and passwords.
4. The father’s imprisonment did not excuse non-compliance. He could have provided the PIN information during visits in prison and could have communicated information about the children through social workers, lawyers, family members or the court.
5. Sentence and orders. Applying the principles identified in Patel & Others and Wilkinson v Anjum, the court treated the continuing and contumelious breaches, the children’s continuing absence and the father’s previous custodial sentences as aggravating features. A custodial sentence remained necessary both to mark disapproval and to promote future compliance. The father was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, not suspended, and was ordered again to secure the children’s return and provide the telephone PIN information. He could apply to purge his contempt. No order was made as to costs.