Committal for Contempt of Court: Ms Georgina Elizabeth Harris -v- Mr Robert John Watts

Family CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Case Number: 1675-4236-4025-5580

In the Family Court at Derby

28 March 205

Before:

District Judge M Davies

Between:

Ms Georgina Elizabeth Harris

-v-

Mr Robert John Watts

Order

DISTRICT JUDGE DAVIES:

  1. I am dealing today again with the matter of Harris and Watts. The applicant is represented, as on the last hearing, by Mr. Hazelwood of counsel. The respondent is not in attendance.
  2. The respondent has previously been found in contempt of court by myself for failing to file and serve a Form E in these proceedings, which have been running for about two years. At a previous hearing I found the allegation proved and adjourned sentence in the hope, rather than the expectation, that the respondent would attend and I directed the issue of a bench warrant, which was sent to Staffordshire Police. Staffordshire Police emailed actually during the course of the hearing today to say that they cannot locate the respondent. However, I am satisfied that he is aware of today’s hearing and has been properly served with all relevant documents relating to this committal application.
  3. In an earlier extempore judgment today, having heard submissions from Mr. Hazelwood and applying the Sanchez checklist, I determined in the circumstances to proceed in the respondent’s absence to sentence.
  4. In that earlier judgment I referenced an email which FRC in Nottingham had received from the respondent’s mother. She asserted that the respondent has some medical issues, suffers from social anxiety and is in receipt of what I think is Personal Independence Payment. There is, however, no medical evidence to support those assertions. When FRC in Nottingham received that email they invited the respondent’s mother/respondent to make a D11 application but no such application has been made.
  5. Mr. Hazelwood referred me to the recent, obviously non-binding, case on very similar facts of Brown v Brown, a decision of District Judge Dodsworth, and I have had the opportunity of refreshing my memory with regard to that during a short adjournment.
  6. I have considered all the relevant matters here and I have determined that the custody threshold is met. However, that should be effectively the last resort and the Court has to consider in the first instance whether to suspend any custodial sentence, and the only obvious term of suspension in this case would be suspended upon the respondent filing and serving a Form E. However, I have absolutely no confidence, given the history of this matter, that the respondent would comply with the terms of any suspension and, thereafter, the applicant would then have to make yet a further application to activate the suspended sentence. That would be more cost and more delay in a case where as Mr. Hazelwood said the Form A was issued over two years ago.
  7. There is nothing before the Court in terms of mitigation, even allowing for the respondent’s mother’s brief email sent earlier this week. So, in my judgment, this is a case where only a sentence of immediate custody will suffice and that is the appropriate order that I will make.
  8. I mentioned that the Brown case was on very similar facts; Form E, et cetera, and on that basis it is a persuasive decision. I have determined that the appropriate sentence is one of 21 days immediate imprisonment for the contempt found. Unlike in the Brown case, the respondent has not spent any time in custody, therefore there will be no credit.
  9. Moving on, I accede to Mr. Hazelwood’s suggestion that as soon as the respondent is arrested the Court should fix an urgent directions hearing at which the respondent can seek to purge his consent by filling in a Form E or giving oral evidence as to his assets and liabilities which, at the end of the day, is all that the Court and the applicant is seeking in order to be able to progress this matter.
  10. However, any such hearing will need very careful choreography by the applicant’s solicitors, an immediate sentence of 21 days will mean in ordinary circumstances that the respondent will be released after 10 and a half days and, as I say, this will need careful liaison with presumably Nottingham Prison to ensure that he is produced and perhaps that a blank Form E is available.
  11. The applicant should also be aware that I am currently the only full- time district judge dealing with FRC matters at Derby so if he is to be produced to a directions hearing it would have to be listed before me so I need to be here effectively.
  12. That 10 and a half day window, on the basis of credit for half the sentence and it will of course include weekends, if that is missed then I am afraid it would seem that the applicant is back to the drawing board.
  13. That concludes my decision on sentence. I will be dealing with the relevant paperwork to have the arrest warrant issued.