Head v Orrow

The original sentence of 12 months' immediate imprisonment for contempt was excessive for a first offence, even considering the seriousness of the breach and the need for deterrence. A sentence of 9 months' immediate imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting contemporary views on domestic violence, proportionality, and the absence of concurrent proceedings.

Parties: Appellant: Damon Head; Respondent: Carol Orrow
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 December 2004
Procedural Posture: Appeal (family Law/contempt) / Appeal From Committal for Contempt; Sentence Appeal
Outcome: Appeal allowed; sentence reduced
Legal Topics: Non Molestation Orders, Breach of Injunction, Sentencing for Contempt, Domestic Violence, Concurrent Proceedings

Family Law Contempt of Court Domestic Violence Non Molestation Orders Breach of Injunction Sentencing for Contempt Concurrent Proceedings

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Damon Head

Appellant

Carol Orrow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law/contempt) / Appeal From Committal for Contempt; Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for contempt (breach of non-molestation order) was manifestly excessive
2 Appropriate sentencing principles for breach of non-molestation orders under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996
3 Relationship between sentences for contempt and criminal proceedings for similar conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence reduced

Orders

Sentence for breach on 21st June reduced from 12 months to 9 months' immediate imprisonment
Concurrent 6 months sentence for fourth breach left unchanged; total sentence 9 months' imprisonment