Karen Jayne Hart v John Ralph Hart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Wildblood |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2966 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: BM11D02463 |
| Date | 05 November 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 2966 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Bristol Court
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Wildblood QC
SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Case No: BM11D02463
and
and
and
Peter Mitchell for the Applicant
Ben Williams for the third and fourth Respondents
(The other parties did not appear)
Hearing date: 5 th November 2018
(sentencing of Susan Byrne and Halesowen Estates Limited)
HHJ Wildblood QC:
In my opinion, this is a ridiculous situation which is brought about by a steadfast refusal to obey court orders. No judge, myself included, would ever wish to be in the position of having to sentence an otherwise highly respectable and respected 65 year old woman, a committed family member, for contempt arising out of the divorce proceedings between her brother and her former sister-in-law. However, that is the position in which I now find myself and there is no avoiding it.
On 24 th October 2018 I gave a judgment in which I found that Mrs Byrne and Halesowen Estates Limited (‘Halesowen’) were both in contempt of court. That judgment has been published in accordance with the Practice Direction issued on 26 th March 2015 by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, and is reported on the Bailii website under the neutral citation of [2018] EWHC 2894. On 23 rd February 2018 I had found that Mr Hart was in contempt of court and, on 15 th March 2018, I sentenced him to a total term of 14 months imprisonment. In the judgment of 15 th March 2018 I listed the specific documentation that had not been produced and I also set out the principles of sentencing that I applied, making reference to the decision in Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others [2005] EWHC 3087 (Ch). I will not repeat here all that I said about the principles of sentencing in that judgment.
Given the fact that, at the relevant times, the shares in Halesowen have been owned by Mrs Byrne and she has been the only director of the company, I do not intend to impose any separate penalty against the company. Therefore, from now on, this judgment records the sentence that I have decided must be imposed as a result of the contempt that I have found to have been committed by Mrs Byrne.
In deciding upon the sentence that I impose upon Mrs Byrne I take into account the following particular mitigating factors and matters of principle:
i) She is a woman of good character who has made a long-standing and positive contribution to society. I have received an extensive amount of information on this issue and people have been good enough to write very impressive references for her, all of which I have read. As one referee wrote: ‘ It would be a great tragedy for all whom are close to Susan should she receive a custodial sentence. A wife, mother, a grandmother and an amazing friend and any amount of time would be a sad loss of time with her loved ones.’
ii) She is in her mid-60's (her date of birth is 20 th December 1952) and, when suffering from stress and anxiety, experiences cervical and back pain with associated dysfunction, as stated by her physiotherapist in a letter dated 30 th October 2018.
iii) She has become involved in the aftermath of the bitter divorce proceedings between her brother and former sister-in-law. She is not one of the principal parties to these proceedings.
iv) The divorce proceedings between Mr and Mrs Hart are very long-running and Mrs Byrne only became involved as a party at the stage of enforcement, after the main financial order had been made.
v) Unlike Mr Hart, Mrs Byrne does not have the same extensive history of poor engagement in these proceedings from their inception. Mr Hart has been an ‘irresponsible litigant’ throughout these proceedings and was a ‘disaster as a witness’. Unlike Mr Hart, Mrs Byrne has not given untruthful oral evidence in these committal proceedings.
vi) Her contempt arises, I find, principally out of her sense of misplaced loyalty to the elder brother who has protected her and cared for her from a very early age. Although I do not accept that Mr Hart would ever have put Mrs Byrne in a position where he forced her to be in contempt of court against her will, I do accept that loyalty to her brother has been a major reason for her to act in deliberate breach of the relevant court orders (dated 24 th February 2016 and 29 th July 2016). I note, for instance that one character referee writes in this way about the relationship between brother and sister: ‘ There is a substantial difference in age. I understand from Susan that their natural father left when she was a baby. John took over the role of father figure and thus it is not surprising that there is a strong bond of affection between them. Susan has been determined to stand by her brother and is very family orientated.’
vii) Her roles within Halesowen and Drakestown Properties Limited were as a person involved in Mr Hart's overall financial empire. Although I have found, as she accepted at the time, that she was able to comply with the orders to which she consented in February and July 2016, I accept that Mrs Byrne's participation in her brother's financial empire added to her reluctance to do anything that might appear to signal disloyalty to him.
viii) A sentence of imprisonment would have a very marked effect upon her. It would disgrace her within the community and would cause shame and resentment among the family that love her. It would also separate her from the family that she loves.
ix) It is accepted that, together with Mr Hart, she should bear joint and several liability for the costs of these committal proceedings. I am told that Mrs Hart's costs alone of the committal proceedings have been over £100,000. That, in addition to her own costs, is an immense financial burden for her to meet.
x) The delay within these proceedings has been exceptional and has added to the strain upon Mrs Byrne.
xi) I bear in mind the principles of sentencing that offenders, especially first-time offenders, should be kept out of prison if possible and that any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thames Valley Police v Singh
...that Mr Monighan has drawn to my attention. He reminds me that when considering what penalty to impose, the approach in Hart v Hart [2018] EWHC 2966 is of assistance. It is not automatic that imprisonment should follow breach of an order. The full range of criminal sentencing is not availab......