Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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