U appealed from conviction and sentence of six months for contempt of court. The court used its inherent jurisdiction
Vos LJ said: ‘The process of committal for contempt is a highly technical one as this case shows. But it is highly technical for a very good reason, namely the importance of protecting the rights of those charged with a contempt of court. In cases of an alleged breach of a previous court order, persons should not be at risk of being sent to prison for contempt of court unless (i) they have been served, or otherwise made fully and properly aware in accordance with the rules, of the order they are said to have breached before the alleged breach occurs, (ii) the fact that they have been served or so made aware is established before the committing court, (iii) they have been informed before the hearing of the precise details of the breach that they are alleged to have committed, (iv) they have been informed of their right to remain silent before they give evidence, if they choose to do so, and (v) the allegation of contempt is proved to the criminal standard. The principles as to the need for service have always been axiomatic in civil proceedings where injunctions are frequently made against defendants in their absence. It can be no different in family proceedings.’
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division
[2016] EWCA Civ 173, [2017] 1 FLR 1135, [2016] Fam Law 668
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re M (A Child) (Contempt Procedure) CA 3-Sep-2019
Failures in Applying Contempt Procedures
The appellant challenged the finding that he had been in contempt of court. Working as a paralegal in the case he was said to have disclosed to the Immigration Tribunal, documents from family proceedings without the Family Court’s required consent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Contempt of Court
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561212