Thompson v Mitchell

Thompson v Mitchell

The court has no power to override the early release provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; a committal order for contempt must specify a fixed term, not a release date.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Emma Louise Thompson; Respondent/applicant: Steven Mitchell; Amicus Curiae: Attorney General (Amicus Curiae)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Early Release Provisions, Jurisdiction of Sentencing Court
Civil Procedure Family Law Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Early Release Provisions Jurisdiction of Sentencing Court

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

Emma Louise Thompson

Claimant/respondent

Steven Mitchell

Respondent/applicant

Attorney General (Amicus Curiae)

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge had jurisdiction to order imprisonment until a specified date overriding statutory early release provisions
  2. 2 Whether the order should specify a fixed term or a release date

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no power to override the early release provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; a committal order for contempt must specify a fixed term, not a release date.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal out of time granted
  • Appeal allowed