Goldsmith v Goldsmith
The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was excessive given the nature and seriousness of the breaches; a sentence of 8 months is appropriate to mark the court's disapproval and encourage compliance, considering the principle of totality and the mitigating factors not properly considered by the trial judge.
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Robert Terence Goldsmith; Respondent/defendant: Deborah Janet Goldsmith
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 31 October 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal for Contempt of Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Non Molestation Orders, Sentencing, Domestic Violence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Terence Goldsmith
Appellant/claimant
Deborah Janet Goldsmith
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal for Contempt of Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for contempt of court was manifestly excessive
- 2 Whether the judge erred procedurally by not allowing mitigation before sentencing
- 3 Whether the sentence should have been suspended
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was excessive given the nature and seriousness of the breaches; a sentence of 8 months is appropriate to mark the court's disapproval and encourage compliance, considering the principle of totality and the mitigating factors not properly considered by the trial judge.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced
Orders
- The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment.
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