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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether extension of time should be granted in committal proceedings
- 2 Whether the custodial sentence for contempt was excessive
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment