Slade v Slade

Slade v Slade

The sentences imposed by the lower court were manifestly excessive, failed to properly distinguish between punishment for contempt and punishment for criminal conduct already prosecuted, and did not reflect the principle of proportionality. The appropriate total sentence for the contempts, considering the overlap with criminal proceedings and the seriousness of the breaches, was six months' imprisonment.

Parties
Appellant: Melanie Slade; Respondent: Paul Anthony Slade
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contempt of Court, Family Law) / Appeal From Committal Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences reduced.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Double Jeopardy, Sentencing Principles, Harassment, Breach of Undertaking
Family Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Double Jeopardy Sentencing Principles Harassment Breach of Undertaking

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melanie Slade

Appellant

Paul Anthony Slade

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contempt of Court, Family Law) / Appeal From Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for contempt of court were manifestly excessive and/or amounted to double punishment for conduct already subject to criminal proceedings
  2. 2 How to properly sentence for contempt where the same conduct has been prosecuted criminally
  3. 3 Appropriate proportionality and concurrency of sentences for multiple contempts

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed by the lower court were manifestly excessive, failed to properly distinguish between punishment for contempt and punishment for criminal conduct already prosecuted, and did not reflect the principle of proportionality. The appropriate total sentence for the contempts, considering the overlap with criminal proceedings and the seriousness of the breaches, was six months' imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences reduced.

Orders

  • The overall sentence of 21 months' imprisonment is quashed and substituted with a sentence of six months' imprisonment, to run concurrently for all contempts.