Claire Mireille N'Djosse v Ifedayo Adedapo Kolawole Adeyeye

Sentencing for contempt requires an assessment of the seriousness of the conduct by reference to culpability and harm. The court must first consider whether a fine is sufficient. If custody is necessary, it must impose the shortest term that properly reflects the seriousness of the contempt, taking account of mitigation and the effect on children or vulnerable dependants. A custodial term should be suspended only where the circumstances justify suspension after the appropriate term has been fixed. Breaches of closely related orders may be treated as one course of contempt, but a single breach may still warrant imprisonment where the surrounding circumstances make it exceptionally serious.

The respondent father had previously been found in contempt of two orders requiring steps connected with the return of the parties’ young child from Nigeria to France. The proceedings were adjourned several times to allow enquiries and further action in Nigeria. At the penalty hearing, the father was unrepresented and sought further time, but the court concluded that he had had a fair opportunity to present his case.

The court had to determine the appropriate penalty for the contempt, including whether imprisonment should be imposed or suspended, and applications for a lump sum under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 and costs.

1. Penalty for contempt. The court applied the sentencing guidance in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392 and Her Majesty's Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15. Seriousness was assessed by reference to culpability and the harm caused, intended or likely to be caused. A fine was considered insufficient, and custody was therefore required.
2. The two breaches were made in relatively quick succession and were treated as equivalent to breach of a single order for sentencing purposes. Nevertheless, the context was extremely serious: a young child had been removed from the mother without warning and had not been returned, while the father had failed adequately to progress proceedings in Nigeria. The court did not sentence for abduction itself, but treated it as the context of the contempt.
3. The mitigating matters included the father’s engagement with the proceedings, financial difficulties, lack of previous convictions and personal circumstances. They did not outweigh the seriousness of the contempt. Applying Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570, the court fixed the appropriate term without reference to suspension. A six-month term was imposed and took effect immediately because a further opportunity to comply was unlikely to change matters.
4. The court also had regard to Egeneonu [2018] EWCA Civ 1714 and Elkndo v Elsyed [2024] EWHC 2230. The father retained the opportunity to purge his contempt if the child were returned.
5. A lump sum of £3,000 was ordered under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 to assist the mother with Nigerian legal representation. The father was ordered to pay £2,000 for costs already incurred and £30,000 towards pro bono costs, the latter not being enforceable without leave.