YOUNG v JACKMAN; JUPP v YOUNG [1993] NSWCA 298

YOUNG v JACKMAN; JUPP v YOUNG [1993] NSWCA 298

Mr Young was in deliberate and sustained contempt by removing and keeping the child outside the jurisdiction in defiance of a valid custody order, not because of any genuinely held belief regarding threats to the child's safety or because of reliance on incorrect legal advice. His primary and dominant purpose was to frustrate the orders of the Supreme Court in relation to custody, not to protect the child.

Parties
Appellant/contemnor: Mr Young; Respondent/complainant: Miss Jackman (now Mrs Carter)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1993
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Contempt Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Contempt established; custodial sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Removal of Child From Jurisdiction, Deliberate Breach of Court Orders, Assessment of Contempt and Penalty
Family Law Contempt of Court Sentencing Child Custody Removal of Child From Jurisdiction Deliberate Breach of Court Orders Assessment of Contempt and Penalty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Young

Appellant/contemnor

Miss Jackman (now Mrs Carter)

Respondent/complainant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Contempt Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Young was guilty of contempt of court for removing his son from the jurisdiction in breach of a custody order
  2. 2 Whether alleged threats to take the child to Lebanon or incorrect legal advice provided a justification or excuse for his conduct
  3. 3 Assessment of the seriousness of the contempt and the appropriate penalty

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Young was in deliberate and sustained contempt by removing and keeping the child outside the jurisdiction in defiance of a valid custody order, not because of any genuinely held belief regarding threats to the child's safety or because of reliance on incorrect legal advice. His primary and dominant purpose was to frustrate the orders of the Supreme Court in relation to custody, not to protect the child.

Court Disposition

Contempt established; custodial sentence imposed.

Orders

  • Mr Young is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for six months.
  • Mr Young is to pay the complainant's costs of these proceedings.