Committal for Contempt of Court: A Mother -v- A Father

Family CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Case Number: BH23F00135

In the Family Court at Bournemouth

7 October 2024

Before:

District Judge Veal

Between:

A Mother

-v-

A Father

Order

District Judge Veal :

  1. The application that has come before the court today is an application for contempt. The application was issued on 9 June 2023 in respect of alleged breaches of a non-molestation order, which was made against you on 22 March 2023. The non-molestation order was personally served on you on 23 March 2023.  On 21 April 2023, that non-molestation order was made final at a hearing which you attended. That was on the basis of no admissions being made by you and no findings having been made by the court.
  2. The position is that, throughout these contempt proceedings, you have been reminded of your right to silence, privilege against self-incrimination and your right to legal representation. 
  3. Today, although the allegations were put to you at the previous hearing and you denied all of them, you have come to court today and you have admitted two of them. You have admitted that, on 3 April 2023, you emailed the applicant, called her “vile,” and that was a breach of paragraph 9 of the non-molestation order. On 6 May 2023, you emailed her again and referred to her as, “You sick, twisted weirdo,” again in breach of paragraph 9 of the non-molestation order.
  4. For context, I think it is important that the first of those breaches was less than two weeks after the non-molestation order was first made against you and served on you. The second breach was very shortly after you attended the hearing when the non-molestation order was made final. I am satisfied that you knew what was required of you and that you failed to stick to the terms of the non-molestation order that you agreed you would abide by.
  5. On your behalf, it is submitted that the emails themselves were permitted to be sent because they related to child arrangements, and I accept that. On the whole, therefore, your emails were compliant with the terms of the non-molestation order. 
  6. It is said on your behalf that the words you used, and which are criticised within the admissions that you have made, were words used in the context of a difficult family case. Whilst that may be right, in my judgment, in the light of the non-molestation order, you knew or should have known that you should be choosing your words more carefully. I do not, therefore, accept that your culpability was low, and I find that it was deliberate, such that it falls within culpability category B.
  7. In terms of the harm caused, I am bound to say I have some sympathy with the submission made on behalf of the applicant that the words you used were liable to undermine the co-parenting relationship that you and she were trying to forge in the wake of your separation. It is difficult to see, in those circumstances, how the harm caused can be characterised as no harm or little harm or distress. As I say, I accept it was verbal abuse in the context of an acrimonious relationship following your separation. I, therefore, consider, in my judgment, that this falls between categories 1 and 3, such that your harm caused falls within category 2 within the guideline. I take as my starting point a sentence of one month with a category range of up to three months.
  8. In mitigation, it is said, effectively, that you accept that you were wrong, having applied the benefit of hindsight. I accept that you have shown some remorse for your breaches today. You did not accept the breaches when they were first put to you. It is difficult really to see why in terms of the emails themselves, which are clear. It is clear that they came from you and it is clear that the words used were used by you. However, I do accept that you have admitted your breaches, albeit at the start of the trial. I will reduce the sentence by a factor of 10% to take account of your admission.
  9. Taking those things together, taking into account your mitigation and credit for the guilty plea at the start of trial, I reduce the sentence to one of 20 days.
    (Following further submission)
  10. Having imposed a sentence of 20 days, it falls to me now to consider whether that sentence should be suspended or not. I accept, as I have already indicated, that the breaches arose as part and parcel of an acrimonious family dispute between you and the applicant. 
  11. Although child arrangements are not court ordered in your case, I understand that A currently lives with you, and B with you and mother, on a one-week-on/one-week-off basis. In my judgment, therefore, the harmful impact on them of imposing an immediate custodial sentence would be significant. It seems to me also that imposing an immediate custodial sentence in those circumstances would also serve to further undermine the co-parenting relationship, such as it may be, which exists between you and the applicant.
  12. I am also told that you are currently in employment in the construction sector, earning about £2,000 a month. You struggle financially to make ends meet and to service debt which you have accrued. Again, it seems to me that imposing an immediate custodial sentence would have the impact of potentially damaging your income stream and that impacts not only you, but also your children.
  13. I accept that the prospect of rehabilitation is, on balance, good; that the imposition of the sentence will have something of a deterrent effect, hopefully, on you and that appropriate punishment can be achieved, even if I suspend the sentence. It is not necessary, in those circumstances, for the sentence imposed to be an immediate custodial sentence.
  14. Taking those things together, I will suspend the sentence. I will suspend it for a period of six months when the non-molestation order expires. In that way, that suspension is then linked to future compliance by you with the non-molestation order.