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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

CONTEMPT: H v O (Contempt of Court: Sentencing) [2004] EWCA Civ 1691

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : h-v-o-contempt-of-court-sentencing-2004-ewca-civ-1691
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 16, 2004, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87857

(16 December 2004; May, Dyson and Wall LJJ; Court of Appeal) [2005] 2 FLR 329

The level of sentencing for contempt associated with domestic and other violence in cases which preceded the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and perhaps in some later cases, did not fully reflect contemporary requirements and opinion, which now required more condign deterrent punishment for such offences. The fact that the breaches of non-molestation orders in the instant case took place in the context of a father wishing to have contact with the child was not in any way a mitigating factor. However, there must be regard to the statutory maximum sentence in Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 14: great care must be taken to ensure that sentences in two or more courts did not punish twice for the same thing, and in cases of actual or threatened violence, so far as was consistent with avoiding duplicating punishment, sentences for contempt under Family Law Act 1996, s 42 should not be manifestly discrepant with sentences passed in the Crown Court for comparable offences.

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