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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
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