Heathcote v Crackles [2002] EWCA Civ 222 (19 February 2002)

Heathcote v Crackles [2002] EWCA Civ 222 (19 February 2002)

The custodial sentence of 12 months for contempt was appropriate given the seriousness of the breach and lack of acceptance of responsibility; the Section 91(14) order was invalid as no application under the Children Act was before the court.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 222
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Julie Ann Heathcote; Respondent (applicant/appellant): David Crackles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (committal Proceedings and Section 91(14) Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against sentence dismissed; appeal against Section 91(14) order allowed.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, Contact Orders, Extension of Time

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Ann Heathcote

Applicant (respondent)

David Crackles

Respondent (applicant/appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (committal Proceedings and Section 91(14) Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted in committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the custodial sentence for contempt was excessive
  3. 3 Whether the Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order was validly made

Ratio Decidendi

The custodial sentence of 12 months for contempt was appropriate given the seriousness of the breach and lack of acceptance of responsibility; the Section 91(14) order was invalid as no application under the Children Act was before the court.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence dismissed; appeal against Section 91(14) order allowed.

Orders

  • Extension of time granted for committal appeal.
  • Custodial sentence of 12 months for contempt upheld.