Hazeline Simpson v Tracey Simpson

Hazeline Simpson v Tracey Simpson

Ms Simpson admitted all three breaches of the occupation order. The court found that the time already spent in police custody was sufficient punishment, given the admissions, remorse, lack of prior breaches, and significant mitigation. No further penalty was imposed.

Parties
Claimant: Hazeline Simpson; Defendant: Tracey Simpson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (family) / Judgment
Outcome
No further penalty imposed; time in custody deemed sufficient.
Legal Topics
Occupation Orders, Non Molestation Orders, Committal for Contempt, Sentencing Principles
Family Law Contempt of Court Occupation Orders Non Molestation Orders Committal for Contempt 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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hazeline Simpson

Claimant

Tracey Simpson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (family) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tracey Simpson breached the occupation order and non-molestation order
  2. 2 Whether procedural defects in the committal application preclude a finding of contempt
  3. 3 Appropriate sentence for admitted breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Simpson admitted all three breaches of the occupation order. The court found that the time already spent in police custody was sufficient punishment, given the admissions, remorse, lack of prior breaches, and significant mitigation. No further penalty was imposed.

Court Disposition

No further penalty imposed; time in custody deemed sufficient.

Orders

  • No separate penalty for any of the three counts of contempt.
  • Automatic right of appeal to the High Court within 21 days.