Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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