Hale v Tanner: CA 20 Jul 2000

Hale LJ identified the general considerations that should be applied when sentencing for contempt. She also identified the purpose of sentencing. She identified the special considerations that are relevant in the context of family cases: ‘Family cases, it has long been recognised, raise different considerations from those elsewhere in the civil law. The two most obvious are the heightened emotional tensions that arise between family members and often the need for those family members to continue to be in contact with one another because they have children together or the like . . Having said that, first, these cases have to come before the court on an application to commit. That is the only procedure which is available. Not surprisingly, therefore, the court is directing its mind to whether or not committal to prison is the appropriate order. But it does not follow from that that imprisonment is to be regarded as the automatic consequence of the breaches of an order.’
Hale LJ
[2000] EWCA Civ 5570, [2000] 2 FLR 879, [2000] 1 WLR 2377
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedMurray v Robinson CA 12-Jul-2005
M appealed from findings that he had been in contempt of court for three breaches of non-molestation injunctions.
Held: In this area, as in other areas, imprisonment needs to be reserved for those cases where imprisonment is necessary. It must . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.632183