Chaimae Chat Kaha v Adil Lahmer

Sentencing for contempt in family proceedings is discretionary. Imprisonment is not automatic, particularly for a first breach, and the court must consider the full range of available sanctions.

The sentence must reflect both objectives of contempt proceedings: marking disapproval of the breach and securing future compliance. If imprisonment is imposed, its length must be determined independently of any decision to suspend it. Suspension is available in a wider range of cases than in criminal proceedings, but it must serve a realistic compliance objective.

The court should consider the family context, the seriousness and deliberateness of the breach, mitigation, the contemnor’s insight and prospects of compliance, and any related proceedings arising from the same conduct. Immediate imprisonment may be justified where breaches are grave, persistent and deliberate, and suspension is unlikely to secure compliance.

The applicant sought committal of the respondent for breaches of orders made in family proceedings concerning the return and contact arrangements for a child. The court had previously found three breaches: failure to procure the child’s return to the jurisdiction, failure to purchase and disclose flight tickets, and failure to arrange indirect contact.

Following the committal determination, the court heard mitigation and considered the appropriate sanctions, including imprisonment, a suspended sentence and a fine. The central issues were the proper sentencing approach in a family contempt case and whether immediate custody was necessary to mark the breaches and secure compliance.

1. Sanction and governing principles. The court had wide powers under Family Procedure Rules 2010, rules 37.4, 37.9(1) and 37.28, together with the power under section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to impose imprisonment for up to two years or an unlimited fine. The precise sanction was a matter for judicial discretion.
2. The court applied the family-case sentencing principles in Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570. Imprisonment was not automatic, although it could be imposed on a first occasion. The court had to consider the objectives of marking disapproval of the breach and securing future compliance. The length of imprisonment had to be fixed without regard to whether it would be suspended, and suspension required separate consideration.
3. The court also applied the guidance in Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB). Imprisonment was a last resort and could not be imposed merely because a contemnor could not pay a fine. Serious and deliberate flouting of an order could justify custody. Genuine insight and remorse could reduce the risk of future breach.
4. The court considered the guidance in Slade v Slade [2009] EWCA Civ 748 and expressly considered suspension and the effect of related criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings did not prevent a separate contempt sentence, because the proceedings served different purposes.
5. The breaches were grave, persistent and deliberate. The respondent had shown no remorse, insight or credible intention to comply, and suspension was unlikely to secure the child’s return. Immediate imprisonment was therefore warranted: 12 months for failure to procure return, six weeks for failure to purchase and disclose flight tickets, and six weeks for failure to arrange indirect contact, all concurrent. The total sentence was 12 months. If the child was returned, the respondent could apply to purge his contempt.