Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Murray v Robinson [2005] EWCA Civ 935

Sep 29, 2018, 17:04 PM
Slug : murray-v-robinson-2005-ewca-civ-935
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 12, 2005, 05:24 AM
Article ID : 85601

(Court of Appeal; Lord Woolf LCJ, Thorpe and Lloyd LJJ; 12 July 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 365

Dismissing an appeal made against a sentence of 8 months imprisonment handed down for three breaches of a non-molestation and occupation order relating to sending threatening text messages and waiting outside the victim's house and chasing her when she drove off. If a case warrants a sentence near the top of the range, the appropriate course is probably to bring proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 rather than the Family Law Act 1996, so that the greater powers of punishment are available to the court. Whether or not there is any actual violence, it must be recognised by the courts that the sort of conduct that took place causes very great distress and anxiety to the partner of the offender. This is particularly true where the conduct occurs in or near the victims home. The guidance given in H v O (Contempt of Court: Sentencing) [2004] EWCA Civ 1691, [2005] 2 FLR 329) should be heeded. Regard should also be paid to R v Liddle; R v Hayes [1999] 3 All ER 816, and, in particular, the admonition to courts to treat domestic and other violence associated with harassment and molestation as demanding rather more condign deterrent punishment than formerly (see para [37]). The court dealing with breaches under the Family Law Act 1996 is limited in the range of sentences available to the criminal courts, yet the purposes of sentencing set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 42 are very relevant even in relation to family cases. The court is concerned to reduce crime and the breach of an order of the court is, in this context, a crime. The reform and rehabilitation of those who offend is important. The court must be mindful of the need to protect the public. If it is seen to ignore acts of contempt in this context, the message will be sent out that other partners will be at risk in the same way as the victim in this case.

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