C v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1625 (25 October 2001)

C v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1625 (25 October 2001)

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and proper direction as to standard of proof and hearsay, that the appellant breached the non-molestation order by making a prohibited statement to the child. The full suspended sentence should not have been activated; only 14 days should be implemented, making a total of 28 days' imprisonment. The power of arrest attached to the order was not justified and should be deleted.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1625
Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil, Family Law) / Appeal From Coventry County Court Judgment on Breach of Non Molestation Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Hearsay Evidence, Committal for Contempt, Children's Welfare, Suspended Sentences, Variation of Court Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Non Molestation Orders Hearsay Evidence Committal for Contempt Children's Welfare Suspended Sentences Variation of Court Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil, Family Law) / Appeal From Coventry County Court Judgment on Breach of Non Molestation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant breached a non-molestation order by making prohibited statements to a child
  2. 2 Admissibility and weight of hearsay evidence from a child in civil proceedings
  3. 3 Appropriateness of activating a suspended sentence and the total length of imprisonment

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and proper direction as to standard of proof and hearsay, that the appellant breached the non-molestation order by making a prohibited statement to the child. The full suspended sentence should not have been activated; only 14 days should be implemented, making a total of 28 days' imprisonment. The power of arrest attached to the order was not justified and should be deleted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Substitute 14 days for the six weeks of the suspended sentence, making a total of 28 days' imprisonment.
  • Vary the order of 2 May by deleting the power of arrest.