Costa v Ferreira [2009] JRC 018 (03 February 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] JRC 018
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Contempt of Court / Breach of Injunction / Sentencing After Finding of Breach
More details
- Posture
- Contempt of Court / Breach of Injunction / Sentencing After Finding of Breach
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Defendant was found to have breached the injunctions on three occasions by harassing the Plaintiff, and admitted to two further breaches. The Court determined that such conduct amounts to contempt and warrants a custodial sentence.
Court disposition
Defendant sentenced to four months' imprisonment for breach of injunctions.
Orders
- Defendant to serve four months' imprisonment.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mr Ferreira
DefendantMiss Costa
PlaintiffAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Term: 4
03
Procedural history
Posture
Contempt of Court / Breach of Injunction / Sentencing After Finding of Breach
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Defendant breached court injunctions on three occasions
- 02
Whether the Defendant's conduct constituted harassment contrary to the injunctions
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant breached the injunctions by following, shouting at, and harassing her on three separate occasions.
- Respondent
- The Defendant's counsel suggested that the Defendant's presence at the airport may have been coincidental and referenced an underlying financial dispute.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of civil procedure and contempt law
A breach of a court injunction constitutes contempt of court and is punishable by imprisonment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Defendant was found to have breached the injunctions on three occasions by harassing the Plaintiff, and admitted to two further breaches. The Court determined that such conduct amounts to contempt and warrants a custodial sentence.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted that continued breaches could result in more serious consequences, including deportation.
- The Court emphasized that financial disputes do not justify harassment or breach of court orders.
Court disposition
Defendant sentenced to four months' imprisonment for breach of injunctions.
- Defendant to serve four months' imprisonment.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
judgment the bailiff: 1. The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant breached the injunctions on each of the three occasions which have been in issue this morning. By way of further explanation of that finding, in order to help counsel for the Defendant in her mitigation, we will make it clear that we accept that it may have been a coincidence that the Defendant was at the airport at the very time when the Plaintiff was arriving from Madeira. We find however, in accepting the evidence of the Plaintiff that the Defendant followed her into the car park shouting at her or calling out to her, that that was a harassment of the Defendant. In relation to the incident at the White Horse Hotel, we accept the evidence of the Plaintiff and we find that the Defendant again harassed the Plaintiff contrary to the injunction. In relation to the incident at St Thomas's Church, we accept the evidence of the Plaintiff that the Defendant was in New Street adjacent to the Church at a time when he is prohibited from being in the vicinity of St Thomas Church. [The Court heard submissions in relation to sentence.] 2. Mr Ferreira, the Court has today found that you were in breach of the inunctions imposed by the Court in August, 2004, on three occasions and you have admitted breaching the injunction on two other occasions. You have been before the Court on many previous occasions
when you have either admitted or you have been found to be in breach of the same orders of the Court. You may not understand it in this way, but what you are doing is bullying your former partner in a way which the Court can not accept. There are a number of very serious things which the Court can do and it will be bound to consider those serious things, including deportation, if this continues to go on. We hope that it will not, because if the underlying problem is the money which you say is owing to you, your advocates are dealing with that and they will bring it to a conclusion in due course, but that is not an excuse for harassing Miss Costa, for shouting out to her, for following her around and making her life a misery. While you do those things the Court is bound to punish you for the breaches of its orders. The Court hopes that when you come out of prison on this occasion you will organise your life in such a way that you make it impossible to follow Miss Costa or to be in the same place as her at the same time. On these occasions you could have gone back from the Ambassador Hotel by a different route, you could have gone to Springfield stadium by a different route. It is up to you to organise your life in such a way that you do not put yourself at risk of breaching these conditions. In the meantime, the Court has to punish you for the breach of the Court's orders, and we are going to sentence you to four months' imprisonment. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 16 Feb 2017 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.