This was an application for committal of father for breach of orders requiring him to return children from Lebanon. Father sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended for 6 months. The hearing was conducted in public.
These proceedings concern three children: William who is aged seven, Alexander aged five, and Jasmine aged three.
On 17 June 2022 the Father wrongfully removed the three children from the jurisdiction of England & Wales to Lebanon, at a time when the Mother was temporarily out of this jurisdiction on a work commitment.
The Mother subsequently issued proceedings on 6 October 2022 for the children’s urgent return. There was an urgent hearing the same day where the children were made wards of the court. There were then a number of hearings before various High Court judges. Importantly a return order was made by Russell J on 14 December 2022, 20 December 2022, 10 January 2023 (for the children to be returned immediately but in any event no later than 26 January 2023 as the Father had indicated he would be able to return the children by then), at a further hearing in late March 2024, and by Francis J on 12 May 2023 (where it was ordered that they be returned no later than 19 May 2023).
In the meantime, it is understood that the Father had issued proceedings on 21 November 2022 in Lebanon seeking custody of the children and for them to be placed in his sole care. The Father subsequently acquired a temporary custody order in Lebanon on 26 January 2023.
The Mother made an application for committal of the Father for the alleged breach of five return orders by the High Court, whereby the Father failed to return the three children from Lebanon to the Jurisdiction of England and Wales as ordered on five occasions.
The Mother issued committal proceedings on 14 June 2023. A significant hearing was held before Peel J on 5 July 2023; at that hearing he dealt in detail with the committal application and the various procedural requirements. Again a further return order was made, again with clear provision that there was an ongoing obligation on the Father to return the children to this jurisdiction, with a return date specified of 12 July 2023.
None of the orders for the return of the children were complied with by the Father.
he matter came before HHJ Harris for a committal hearing on 21 August 2023.
The first issue HHJ Harris had to contend with was whether the court should proceed in the absence of the Father who had not attended, despite being ordered to do so, nor had he accessed any of the means to enable him to attend the hearing remotely. The Judge reminded herself of the very serious nature of committal proceedings and that the court must proceed with the utmost caution before proceeding in the absence of the respondent; namely the Father. However, the Judge weighed those matters against the disrespect and non-compliance of the Father which she observed were “now persistent in nature” and the impact on the Mother who has been seeking the return of their children since October 2022. The Judge was satisfied that the Father was aware of the hearing and had deliberately chosen not to engage and therefore did not consider there was any prejudice or compromise in terms of his access to justice were the court to proceed. The Judge therefore determined that the court should proceed in the Father’s absence.
HHJ Harris then dealt with the substantive issue before the court; namely the Mother’s application or committal.
HHJ Harris briefly summarised the relevant law before going on to make findings against the Father that he was in contempt of court for knowingly breaching six orders of the High Court by Russell J on 9 December 2022, 20 December 2022, 11 January 2023, and 7 March 2023, Francis J on 12 May 2023 and Peel J on 5 July 2023.
Turning to the sentence, HHJ Harris noted the two core purposes of a sentence for committal; specifically – “to emphasise the seriousness of the flouting of court orders and to indicate this court’s significant disapproval of such contempt and disrespect for this court. Secondly, it is with the clear purpose to seek to secure the compliance of the individual in breach of these court’s orders.”
HHJ Harris considered the six breaches to be particularly serious and to represent a deliberate flouting of the High Court’s orders. She was also anxious to make clear to the Father the importance of complying with orders in the future. HHJ Harris therefore sentenced the Father to 18 months imprisonment.
That said, HHJ Harris chose to suspend that order for imprisonment, pursuant to her powers, for a period of six months to afford the Father a further opportunity to comply with her own order for the immediate return of the three children, and by no later than 23.59pm in a period of no less than eight weeks.
Original reporting by Family Law Week