M (Children)

M (Children)

The judge erred in principle by imposing a suspended custodial sentence solely because the appellant lacked means to pay a fine, and by not ensuring procedural clarity. The finding of contempt stands, but the suspended committal sentence is quashed and no order is substituted.

Parties
Appellant: Mr M; Respondent: Mrs M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Family Law (committal) / Appeal From Committal Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Court Orders, Residence Orders, Sentencing Principles
Family Law Civil Procedure Committal for Contempt Enforcement of Court Orders Residence Orders Sentencing Principles

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr M

Appellant

Mrs M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Family Law (committal) / Appeal From Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal order and suspended custodial sentence for breach of a residence order was appropriate and lawful
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural irregularity in the conduct of the committal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in principle in imposing a custodial sentence due to inability to pay a fine

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by imposing a suspended custodial sentence solely because the appellant lacked means to pay a fine, and by not ensuring procedural clarity. The finding of contempt stands, but the suspended committal sentence is quashed and no order is substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Suspended committal sentence discharged
  • No order substituted for penalty