Fahad Abdi v Manchester City Council & Ors

Successive contempt committals may be imposed for breaches of later mandatory orders, even where the orders concern the same subject matter. The legality of a further custodial term depends on the fresh breach, its effect, earlier sentences, proportionality and the prospect of securing future compliance. The two-year ceiling in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to each individual committal term, not the aggregate of separate sentences for separate orders. Habitual residence turns on integration into the social and family environment. A child’s birth, residence and schooling in England and Wales may establish jurisdiction despite current presence abroad. Appellate intervention in factual findings requires a proper error such as inconsistency or irrationality.

Fahad Abdi appealed against a committal order made by Mr Justice Macdonald in the Family Division. The order, reported as [2023] EWHC 2792 (Fam), imposed 12 months’ imprisonment for breaches of orders requiring Mr Abdi to secure the return of his children from Somalia and provide mobile-phone PIN numbers and passwords.

He challenged the factual findings, the court’s jurisdiction, successive sentences for contempt, the statutory two-year limit, the proportionality of the sentence, his continued detention, and alleged breaches of his Convention rights. The central questions were whether the breaches were properly established and whether the further committal and sentence were lawful.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found no basis for setting aside either the findings of contempt or the 12-month sentence.

1. Factual findings. An appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact without an identified error, such as internal inconsistency, inconsistency with an established fact, irrationality or another proper basis for intervention. The judge was entitled to rely on the transcript of the conversation and to find that Mr Abdi controlled access to the children. No such error was shown: Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; [2014] EMTR 26.
2. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction depended on habitual residence, assessed by the child’s integration into the social and family environment. The children’s birth, residence and schooling in England and Wales established habitual residence there despite their presence in Somalia: A and another (Children: Habitual Residence) [2013] UKSC 60; [2014] AC 1. The local authority’s error about the children’s passports was immaterial.
3. Successive committals. A person may be sentenced for contempt arising from breach of a subsequent mandatory order, although its subject matter is similar to an earlier order. Whether further imprisonment is justified depends on the facts then in play: Re W (Abduction: Committal) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196; [2012] 1 WLR 1036.
4. Sentence and statutory limits. Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 limits each individual sentence imposed by a superior court to two years. It does not prevent separate sentences for separate breaches from having an aggregate exceeding two years. The further sentence was just, proportionate and directed to upholding the court’s authority and securing future compliance, including the safe return of the children.
5. Detention and Convention rights. Continued detention under a later order for a separate contempt, following a fair and public hearing, was lawful under section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The asserted Convention rights had not been infringed. The committal order and sentence therefore remained undisturbed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed on 30 April 2024 in [2024] EWCA Civ 411.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): An earlier appeal against a committal order dated 11 May 2023 was dismissed in [2023] EWCA Civ 1214.
3. High Court of Justice, Family Division: Mr Justice Macdonald found breaches of the relevant orders and imposed 12 months’ imprisonment in [2023] EWHC 2792 (Fam).