K v P

K v P

The sentencing judge erred in law by failing to deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence imposed for contempt, as required by established case law and statutory provisions. The correct approach was to deduct six months from the twelve-month sentence to account for three months on remand, resulting in a total sentence of nine months.

Parties
Appellant: K; Respondent: P
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sentence for Contempt (breach of Non Molestation Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Non Molestation Orders, Sentencing, Remand Credit
Family Law Criminal Law Contempt of Court Non Molestation Orders Sentencing Remand Credit

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Appellant

P

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sentence for Contempt (breach of Non Molestation Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to deduct time spent on remand from the sentence imposed for contempt (breach of non-molestation order)

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in law by failing to deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence imposed for contempt, as required by established case law and statutory provisions. The correct approach was to deduct six months from the twelve-month sentence to account for three months on remand, resulting in a total sentence of nine months.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sentence for breach of non-molestation order reduced to six months plus three months for activation of suspended sentence, totaling nine months.