Dubarry v Dubarry [2002] EWCA Civ 1808 (14 November 2002)

Dubarry v Dubarry [2002] EWCA Civ 1808 (14 November 2002)

Immediate imprisonment is necessary due to repeated and blatant breaches of injunctions, but six months is excessive; three months is proportionate given the circumstances and seriousness.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1808
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Phyllis Dubarry; Defendant/appellant: Aaron Joseph Dubarry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From County Court (family Law) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced from six months to three months imprisonment.
Legal Topics
Injunction Breach, Sentencing, Harassment, Drug Addiction, Community Rehabilitation
Family Law Criminal Law Injunction Breach Sentencing Harassment Drug Addiction Community Rehabilitation

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phyllis Dubarry

Claimant/respondent

Aaron Joseph Dubarry

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From County Court (family Law) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the six-month sentence for breach of injunctions under Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 was excessive
  2. 2 Appropriateness of immediate imprisonment versus suspended sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Immediate imprisonment is necessary due to repeated and blatant breaches of injunctions, but six months is excessive; three months is proportionate given the circumstances and seriousness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced from six months to three months imprisonment.

Orders

  • Substitute three-month sentence for six-month sentence, to run from 18 October 2002.
  • Detailed assessment of publicly funded costs.