Hammerton v Hammerton

Hammerton v Hammerton

The appeal was allowed and the committal order and sentence quashed because the appellant was deprived of legal representation, was not warned of his rights, and the judge failed to differentiate between the evidential and procedural requirements of contact and committal proceedings, resulting in a breach of Article 6 ECHR and fundamental procedural unfairness.

Parties
Appellant: William Hammerton; Respondent: Beverly Hammerton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From Committal Order and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; committal order and sentence quashed.
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Article 6 ECHR, Legal Representation, Procedural Fairness, Contact With Children, Non Molestation Orders, Undertakings, Sentencing in Contempt
Family Law Criminal Contempt Human Rights Committal Proceedings Article 6 ECHR Legal Representation Procedural Fairness Contact With Children +3 more

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Hammerton

Appellant

Beverly Hammerton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From Committal Order and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal proceedings and sentencing were fatally flawed due to procedural errors and lack of legal representation for the appellant
  2. 2 Whether hearing the contact and committal applications together deprived the appellant of a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider the appropriate burden and standard of proof, and the right against self-incrimination in committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the committal order and sentence quashed because the appellant was deprived of legal representation, was not warned of his rights, and the judge failed to differentiate between the evidential and procedural requirements of contact and committal proceedings, resulting in a breach of Article 6 ECHR and fundamental procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; committal order and sentence quashed.

Orders

  • The findings of contempt and the sentence of three months' imprisonment are set aside.
  • No order as to costs is specified.