Re W. (B.) (an Infant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,LORD JUSTICE WINN |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Civ J1122-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 November 1968 |
In the Matter of Barbara Helen Williams (Spinster an Infant)
In the Matter of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) ACT 1949
[1968] EWCA Civ J1122-2
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Russell and
Lord Justice Winn
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal of Joseph Savill against Order of Mr. Justice Megarry ending suspension of Mr. Justice Pennycuick's order committing Joseph Savill to prison for 6 months.
Mr. TASKER WATKINS, Q.C., and Miss ANITA RYAN (instructed by Messrs. Norman Israel and Walsh) appeared on behalf of the contemnor, Mr. Ernest Joseph Savill.
Mr. IAN McCULLOCH (instructed by Messrs Lovell White & King, Agents for Messrs. Charles Webb & Sons of Brighton) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff.
THE MASTTR OF THE ROLLS: This is a troublesome case. Mr. Savill is 57 years of age, a schoolmaster. He teaches male adjusted children. He married long ago in 1934 when he was some 23 years of age. He has a grown-up daughter. He only lived with his wife for a few years. In 1940 he separated from her, and "began to live with a Miss Eilenn Minette Williams, He has lived with her as his wife for many year's, and has associated with her in various property interests. In 1965 they were running a guest house in Sussex together. Miss Williams invited to the house her niece, Barbara Helen Williams, who was then a schoolgirl some 16 or 17 years of age. She was born on 5th September, 1943. After a while Miss williams noticed that there was undue familiarity between Mr. Savill and her niece Barbara. She could see that the girl of 17 was infatuated with Mr. Savill. She warned the girl's parents about it, they did not intervene. But the girl's grandmother took steps. She applied in March 1967 for the girl to be made a ward of Court. The girl became at once a ward and this was continued on 18th April, 1967, by an application under Order 91 Rule 2 which has yet to be determined, The application is to be heard on 2nd or 3rd. December. But meanwhile the girl is a ward of Court.
Soon after the girl was made a ward of Court, the grandmother, strongly supported by Miss Eileen Minette Willlams, brought before the Judge the -fact that Mr. Savill -was associating with the girl. Mr. Savill gave an undertaking on 25th April, 1967, that "during the minority of the above-named infant Barbara Helen Williams or until further order that he will, not associate or communicate whether directly or indirectly or in any way whatever with the said infant". I am sorry to say that he broke that undertaking. He deliberately disregarded the order of the Court. In consequence, the matter was brought before the Judge again. On 6th June it was adjourned to 13th on the application of his Counsel. Then on 13th June, Mr. Savill, appearing himselfin person, signed an undertaking: "I agree to continue the above undertaking until after Tuesday, 20th June". He did not even keep that solemn promise under his own hand. He again broke the undertaking. Be on 20th June the matter was again brought Mr Justice Pennycuick. He sat in camera. He heard Mr. Savill's explanations, such as they were, of his continuing association with this girl, so much younger then himself. The judge took a very serious view. It was as bad a case of contempt, he said, as could be imagined. He ordered that Mr. Savill "do stand committed to Brixton Prison for a period of six months as to his said contempt. But the operation of this part of this order is hereby suspended so long as the respondent Joseph Savill complies with the injunctions hereinafter contained". He went on to make injunctions restraining Mr. Savill during the girl's minority from associating or communicating "with the girl or visiting any building where she was. The result was that Mr. Savill was under a sentence of six months, suspended so long as he obeyed the injunctions. It is very unusual in a wardship case to make a suspended sentence of that kind, but still it was within the Jurisdiction of the Judge to make it.
It appears that for nearly a year Mr. Savill obeyed the injunctions: or rather, shall I say, there is no evidence to show that he broke the injunctions. But on 15th June, 1968, both Mr. Savill and the girl arrived at the house of the girl's parents in Brighton and stayed to tea. Mr. Savill swore an affidavit in which he sought to explain his presence there with the girl. He said it was quite accidental as the result of a car breakdown. but, nevertheless, whatever the validity of his explanation, there is no doubt whatever that, being in the girl's company that afternoon, he had broker: the injunctions. The matter was brought before the Court. Miss Eileen Kinette Williams seems to have been the moving spirit. She made the affidavitt. The girl's parents took no part in it, They made no affidavit against Mr. Savill at all. It came before Mr. Justice Megarry. He held that,once the breach of the injunction was proved, he had no discretion but to send Mr Savill to prison for the six months. He said: "I am not concerned with the appropriateness of the period of six months……. All that I am concerned with is whether the period of suspension has determined…………. There has now been an admitted breach which I do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meath County Council v Hendy
...on the contemnors in lieu of sequestration of the company's assets for wilful breach of the orders of the court. 86 . Lord Denning in In Re W(B) (an Infant) [1969] 2 Ch 50 at p. 56 observed: “Imprisonment is not the inevitable consequence of a breach. The court has a discretion to do what ......
-
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik
...is not obliged to impose the suspended sentence, but has a discretion to do what is just in the circumstances: re W (B) (An Infant) [1969] 2 WLR 99 at 103–104; Banton v Banton (see [46] above) at 466–467; Villiers v Villiers [1994] 1 WLR 493 at 498; Griffin v Griffin (see [22] above) at 49 ......
-
Flood v Lawlor
...terms of the suspension, the court had a discretion whether to order the imprisonment of the contemnor: citing Re: W (B) and infant [1969] 1 All E.R. 594. Mr. Trainor said that imprisonment should always be regarded as a sanction of last resort in cases of contempt, citing Arlidge, Eady and......
-
Villiers v Villiers
...of young offenders and first offenders do not apply. 24 Mr. Munby has also, however, and most helpfully, drawn our attention to In Re W(B) (An Infant) [1969] 2 Ch 50 in which the activation of suspended sentences was the subject of decision by this Court. It emerges clearly from the judgmen......