In previous blogs, we have followed this case. This case concerned the parent of the Protected Party (FP), who was subject to Court injunctions prohibiting her from publicising details of FP’s case and from making allegations against the professionals involved in FP’s care. Despite the injunctions, the parent repeatedly breached the terms by posting videos and statements online, during which she named professionals and made serious allegations. In January 2023, the parent was found in contempt of Court and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Continued breaches led to a further contempt finding in January 2024, resulting in a four-month immediate custodial sentence. Following sentencing, the parent fled to France to avoid the custodial sentence but persisted in breaching the injunctions online.
The parent has since appealed against the finding of contempt and the four-month custodial sentence on the following grounds:
- The finding breached her human rights, including her right to a private family life and her freedom of expression;
- The handling of the case breached her right to a fair trial as she was unrepresented, and the hearing proceeded without essential documentation;
- There were procedural irregularities, and there was an abuse of process as the Local Authority failed to file and serve documents in a timely manner or follow the Court of Protection Rules 2017;
- The Court was biased by relying on the expert report, which was felt to be flawed;
- That the deprivation of liberty on FP was unlawful as it is not in her best interests or proportionate;
- The absence of the transcript denied her a timely and effective right of appeal. This breach renders the order unsafe and unlawful; and
- The injunctions were disproportionate and caused more harm to FP.
The Court’s decision
In considering the appeal, the Judge addressed those grounds directly, noting that the sentence of imprisonment had an adverse effect on FP and her husband. The Judge, however, noted that the parent had been in disagreement with many professionals involved in FP’s care and had repeatedly aired her strong views throughout the proceedings. The Court acknowledged that the parent may have wished for the Court to order a custodial sentence to draw attention to her case and therefore considered whether a further sentence was suitable as it did not appear to assist in the enforcement of the injunction.
It was found that the arguments put forward by the parent did not undermine the central issue that the parent had knowingly and deliberately breached a valid Court order. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that Court orders must be obeyed, and repeated breaches will almost invariably lead to custodial sentences, even in sensitive family or welfare contexts.
How can we help?
Stuart Parris is a Senior Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you have any queries relating to the above subject, please contact Stuart or a member of our Dispute Resolution team, who will be able to assist you. Please call 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online enquiry form.
Contact us