A-A v B-A
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 September 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWCA Civ J0926-3 |
| Date | 26 September 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B1/2000/2707 |
[2000] EWCA Civ J0926-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BRENTFORD COUNTY COURT
FAMILY DIVISION
(His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Ward
Lord Justice Waller
B1/2000/2707
MR NICHOLAS ANDERSON (Instructed by Messrs Glasners, 15 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4 QH) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR ALASTAIR PANTON (Instructed by Messrs Lovell Chohan & Co, 26a Bath Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 3EB) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Tuesday, 26th September 2000
LORD JUSTICE WARD: This is an appeal by the husband in this marriage against his having been committed to prison for contempt of orders made in the county court on 11th October 1999, those orders requiring him to leave the former matrimonial home and not to return to it, to restrain him from the use or threat of violence against the wife, or any intimidation, harassment or pestering of her. The sentence imposed by His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards in the Brentford County Court was 12 months' imprisonment. That sentence was made up as follows: 12 months for raping the wife on 21st October, three months for harassing and intimidating her by numerous telephone calls of a harassing and intimidating nature made between the 26th October 1999 and the 15th December 1999; secondly, for pressurising her to allow him to return home on the 23rd October 1999; and, thirdly, for on numerous occasions threatening her with violence as set out in her application. For those offences of harassment he was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment but concurrent with the 12 months which he received for the main charge. The appeal is really directed to that sentence of 12 months. Mr Anderson, who has done all he can for his client, submits that in the light of a decision of this court in N v N (Contempt Committal) [1992] FLR 270, a case to which the judge's attention was not drawn, we should interfere and substantially reduce the order.
The facts are these. The parties are of Moroccan origin. Their marriage has come to an end and the molestation orders and injunctions were made to protect the wife. The judge found that she was very frightened of her husband, feared losing her children and, given her uncertain immigration status, feared being deported to Morocco. The husband struck the judge as being an intelligent, determined and manipulative man who had undoubtedly caused the wife to become very frightened of him. He said that he thought the husband had no scruples at all about using threats in relation to the children or her status as an immigrant to get his own way. He had no hesitation in preferring the evidence of the wife where it conflicted with that of the husband. The families, having a muslim background, are families in which the respective maternal and paternal side bring pressures of culture and religion to bear upon the young couple. There is, therefore, no doubt, the judge found, that the wife had blown hot and cold at times, had been bewildered and confused, had wanted a reconciliation and then not wanted it and certainly was at all times upset about the children and her immigration status.
It was in the light of factors of that kind that there was apparently a family meeting on the 31st October. That was some 20 days after the injunction was confirmed. Whilst the families were engaged in discussion over the future of this marriage the wife says that the husband asked to speak to her on her own, which she had initially refused because she was frightened of him. Reading from her affidavit she says this (see page 5 of the judgment):
"I was down the passageway in or out of the living room when the Respondent pulled me into one of the bedrooms, covering my mouth to prevent me from screaming. The Respondent" [that is the husband] "pleaded and begged me not to scream as our families were sitting in the adjoining living room, and he said that he missed me a lot and simply wanted to talk to me. I was scared but had no choice as the Respondent is physically stronger than I am and I could not release myself from his grip. The Respondent kept my mouth covered with one hand, pulled my trouser bottoms down with his other hand, hurling me against the wall. The Respondent said he was desperate as he hadn't 'done it' for a long time, and then he raped me. I was too embarrassed to scream or do anything as my family were in the next room. I stood against the wall like a statue crying helplessly while the Respondent, still holding me against the wall, raped me. Once the Respondent had finished he said to me in a very low...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T v T
...FLR 7 WHITE V WHITE 2000 1 FLR 7 GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT 1964 S11 D (J) V D (D) 1997 3 IR 64 WHITE V WHITE 2001 1 AER 1 COWAN V COWAN 2001 2 FLR 1 FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S20(2)(F) FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S20(2)(I) FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S20(2)(J) FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE......