Chelmsford County Court v Simon Abraham Ramet
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir James Munby |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 56 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 3CM00973 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 22 January 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 56 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Sir James Munby
President of the Family Division
Case No: 3CM00973
In the matter of an application for the committal to prison of Simon Abraham Ramet
Mr Anthony Jerman (instructed by Taylor Haldane Barlex) for the respondent
The applicant was not represented
Hearing dates: 28 November, 17 December 2013
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division:
10 October 2013: an ordinary afternoon in a typical County Court. Her Honour Judge Roberts is giving a judgment in Southend County Court. She has been hearing a family dispute between Simon Abraham Ramet and his former wife about his contact with their son, who is only a few weeks short of his thirteenth birthday. The mother is represented. The father is appearing in person. For the three human beings involved, the mother, the father and their son, the matter is intensely important. What, after all, can be more important than a parent's contact with their child and the child's contact with their parent? For the outsider all I need add is that the litigation has been going on for much of the time since the parents separated in 2003. That must be very distressing for the family. For anyone concerned with or concerned about the family justice system it is very depressing.
It is now almost ten years since, on 1 April 2004, I delivered a judgment drawing attention to the problem: Re D (Intractable Contact Dispute: Publicity) [2004] EWHC 727 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 1226 (it can be found on BAILII under the title F v M). My comments received much publicity at the time. How much has changed? A coruscating judgment by McFarlane LJ in September last year, Re A (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104, would suggest to the pessimist the answer "not much" and even to the optimist "not enough". Something must be done. A recent report by a Working Group chaired by Cobb J, Report to the President of the Family Division of the Private Law Working Group, is at present the subject of consultation and urgent consideration. With its proposal for a Child Arrangements Programme to replace the current Private Law Programme, it maps out a radically different approach. I am determined to implement the necessary reforms as soon as possible this year.
I return to Southend. Judge Roberts has been describing Mr Ramet, his evidence and his closing submissions:
"he made no reference at all to the overwhelming mass of evidence, which was critical of his own conduct … [he] has focused on his own feelings … and finds it very difficult to see any fault on his own part."
Having referred to a report by a CAFCASS officer in 2007, she continues "If Mr Ramet had listened to that advice then, and since then, the situation may not be as it currently is. He did not". Having referred to another expert report from 2011, she says "I accept all this expert evidence, and it is of huge regret that that advice was not followed." She now turns to the mother. She says
"I found [her] to be sensible, reasonable and thoughtful. I have read the older reports, and it is clear to me that she has listened to much of the advice she has been given."
At that point the transcript abruptly ends. What has happened?
Mr Ramet has got up, as if to leave court, but in fact he attacks the mother, grabs her, repeatedly punches her about the head with his clenched fist, grabbing her hair and kicking her after she has fallen to the floor. The court clerk gallantly goes to her assistance, being assaulted by Mr Ramet for his pains. Mr Ramet is restrained. Order is restored. Judge Roberts adjourns. Mr Ramet is arrested. He is charged and appears in the Magistrates' Court, where he indicates that he pleads guilty. He is remanded in custody for trial in the Crown Court.
Subsequent events can be summarised fairly shortly.
On 16 October 2013 Chelmsford County Court issued a summons requiring Mr Ramet to answer two complaints, that he did "attack" the mother and "hit" the court clerk, and to show cause why an order should not be made against him under the County Courts Act 1984. That is a reference to, respectively, sections 118 and 14 of the 1984 Act.
Section 118 provides as follows:
"Power to commit for contempt
(1) If any person—
(a) wilfully insults the judge of a county court, or any juror or witness, or any officer of the court during his sitting or attendance in court, or in going to or returning from the court; or
(b) wilfully interupts the proceedings of a county court or otherwise misbehaves in court;
any officer of the court, with or without the assistance of any other person, may, by order of the judge, take the offender into custody and detain him until the rising of the court, and the judge may, if he thinks fit,—
(i) make an order committing the offender for a specified period not exceeding one month to … prison … ; or
(ii) impose upon the offender, for every offence, a fine of an amount not exceeding £2,500 or may both make such an order and impose such a fine.
(2) The judge may at any time revoke an order committing a person to prison under this section and, if he is already in custody, order his discharge.
(3) A district judge, assistant district judge, or deputy district judge shall have the same powers under this section in relation to proceedings before him as a judge."
Section 14 provides:
"Penalty for assaulting officers
(1) If any person assaults an officer of a court while in the execution of his duty, he shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both; or
(b) on an order made by the judge in that behalf, to be committed for a specified period not exceeding 3 months to … prison … or to such a fine as aforesaid, or to be so committed and to such a fine,
and a bailiff of the court may take the offender into custody, with or without warrant, and bring him before the judge.
(2) The judge may at any time revoke an order committing a person to prison under this section and, if he is already in custody, order his discharge.
(3) A district judge, assistant district judge or deputy district judge shall have the same powers under this section as a judge."
I draw attention to the limited extent of the court's sentencing powers under these two provisions.
In accordance with directions I had given, that summons was returnable at the Royal Courts of Justice on 23 October 2013. The hearing had to be vacated because of difficulties in serving Mr Ramet, who was in prison awaiting trial in the Crown Court. On 7 November 2013 Judge Roberts completed the giving of her judgment. On 28 November 2013 Mr Ramet appeared before me, represented by Mr Anthony Jerman of counsel. Having regard to his submissions, and taking the view that in any event I should not proceed to a determination until the proceedings in the Crown Court had concluded, I adjourned the matter part heard until 17 December 2013.
Mr Ramet appeared before His Honour Judge Lodge in the Crown Court at Basildon on 5 December 2013. He pleaded guilty to offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (the attack on the mother) and common assault (the attack on the court clerk). Judge Lodge sentenced him to 20 months' imprisonment for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm and four months concurrent for the common assault.
Rejecting his solicitor's submission that the case fell within category two of the Sentencing Council's relevant guidelines, Judge Lodge continued:
"it is a case which falls squarely within category one. There is greater harm because this was a sustained attack upon your victim. There is higher culpability because … she was in a position of particular vulnerability. She was in a courtroom, she was there as your ex-partner in proceedings which were being taken in respect of your son."
Balancing the aggravating against the mitigating features, Judge Lodge said:
"Location is the most serious aggravating feature, but I also identify within the guidelines two further aggravating features: the ongoing effect upon your victim. I have read with care the victim personal statement. Your ex-wife having been subjected to an assault of this nature is forever looking over her shoulder and is always likely to be.
The further factor, which I have to take into account insofar as the clerk to the court was concerned, is this was an offence committed against those working in the public sector.
I have to balance against that, of course, those mitigating features, which have been put before me so carefully and clearly by [your solicitor] on your behalf. Yes, the proceedings were stressful. They came at a time when you yourself were under considerable personal stress, even outside the family proceedings.
You are a man who has no previous convictions recorded against you.
Bearing in mind those aggravating features and giving such credit as I can for the mitigating features, I take the view that so far as the assault occasioning actual bodily harm is concerned, the appropriate starting point is one of 30 months' imprisonment and so far as the common assault is concerned, it is one of six months' imprisonment."
Judge Lodge explained why he was giving Mr Ramet credit for his guilty plea:
"Some people may wonder why I give credit for a guilty plea, but I must. Despite the fact that there could never be any issue of identification or what you did, the guidelines lay down that you are entitled to credit for your guilty plea. You have not chosen to put your former wife through giving evidence. Your guilty plea shows remorse. Your guilty plea has saved a considerable amount of court's time and public expense. You could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devon County Council v Teresa Kirk
...had in gaining access to Mrs Kirk in prison. I share his great concern. I make no apologies for repeating here what I said in Chelmsford County Court v Ramet [2014] EWHC 56 (Fam), [2014] 2 FLR 1081, paras 34–35: "35 … there were difficulties in serving Mr Ramet because he was in prison. Se......
-
V v W
...Court or Crown Court and not as a contempt in the face of the court by the family court: cf, Chelmsford County Court v Ramet [2014] EWHC 56 (Fam), [2014] 2 FLR 29 Mr Finch has to accept that, on the face of it, he cannot bring himself within either exception. But, he submits, the words “wi......
-
The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Ltd v Luke McKay
...in my earlier judgment, Bunning has been held, or at least assumed, to be correct by other courts. In Chelmsford County Court v Ramet [2014] EWHC 56 (Fam), [2014] 2 FLR 1084, Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, had to consider a complaint of contempt arising from a violent a......
-
An application by Gloucestershire County Council for the committal to prison of Matthew John Newman
..."strongly advised to seek legal representation" and told that "legal aid would be available for you to be so represented": see Chelmsford County Court v Ramet [2014] EWHC 56 (Fam), [2014] 2 FLR xxx, paras 32–33. I asked Mr Newman whether he wanted legal representation and made clear that, i......