Murray v Robinson

Murray v Robinson

The sentence of eight months' imprisonment for each of the three breaches, to run concurrently, was not excessive given the appellant's repeated and frightening conduct, the distress caused to the victim, and the need for deterrence and protection of the public. The judge took all relevant factors into account, and the sentence was appropriate.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Murray; Respondent: Kate Louise Robinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law/contempt) / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Order, Occupation Order, Breach of Injunction, Sentencing for Contempt, Domestic Violence
Family Law Criminal Law Contempt of Court Non Molestation Order Occupation Order Breach of Injunction Sentencing for Contempt Domestic Violence

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Murray

Appellant

Kate Louise Robinson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law/contempt) / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of eight months' imprisonment for three breaches of a non-molestation and occupation order was excessive
  2. 2 Appropriate approach to sentencing for contempt in family proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of eight months' imprisonment for each of the three breaches, to run concurrently, was not excessive given the appellant's repeated and frightening conduct, the distress caused to the victim, and the need for deterrence and protection of the public. The judge took all relevant factors into account, and the sentence was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentence of eight months' imprisonment for each breach to run concurrently upheld
  • Detailed assessment of the appellant's costs ordered