Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CONTEMPT/CONTACT: G v G (Contempt: Sentencing)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : g-v-g-contempt-sentencing
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 18, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89387

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Arden LJJ and Hedley J; 6 June 2007) The child had been placed with the maternal grandmother, and the mother was seeking contact. The maternal grandmother had obtained an injunction against the mother with a power of arrest under Family Law Act 1996, Pt 4. The mother had breached the injunction on a number of occasions and at the previous three committal hearings had received: a suspended custodial sentence; a remand in custody for psychiatric evaluation (unsuccessful because the mother had refused to be interviewed by the psychiatrist); and an immediate custodial sentence of 3 months. The mother had consistently appeared in person and refused to obtain legal representation. The maternal grandmother applied for committal for a fourth time, alleging 19 further breaches of the injunction. The judge, who did not raise the possibility of legal representation with the defendant mother, found that the injunction had been breached and sentenced the mother to an immediate custodial sentence of 6 months.

The judge had been justified in not raising the issue of legal representation as it was quite clear that the defendant mother would have refused the opportunity to obtain such representation. The judge had also been entitled to find that there had been breaches of the injunction. However, the mother should have been given an opportunity to address matters as to sentencing. In all the circumstances, although the judge had been entitled to impose an immediate sentence of imprisonment, the defendant mother would be immediately released to give her the opportunity to prepare properly for the trial of the contact issues.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from