Shibna Begum v Ruhul Anam
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THORPE,Mr Justice Bennett,MR JUSTICE BENNETT,LORD JUSTICE KEENE |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 578 |
| Docket Number | B1/2004/0481 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 29 April 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 578
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LUTON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAMILTON)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Thorpe
Lord Justice Keene
Mr Justice Bennett
B1/2004/0481
MR SIMON MILLER (instructed by Messrs Shentons, Hampshire SO23 9AD) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MISS REHNA AZIM (instructed by Machins Solicitors, Luton LU1 2BS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
(Approved by the Court)
Thursday, 29 April 2004
Mr Justice Bennett will give the first judgment.
The appellant appeals from the order of His Honour Judge Hamilton, sitting at the County Court in Luton, given on 18 February 2004, whereby he (i) refused the appellant's application for an adjournment, (ii) found that the appellant had breached orders of the Luton County Court of 22 February 2001 and (iii) imposed a total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment on the appellant. The appellant was not present, nor was he legally represented. In fact he was serving a sentence of imprisonment in Her Majesty's Prison in Winchester for a quite unrelated matter. He was due to be released from that sentence on 19 February 2004, that is the day after the hearing in front of the learned judge.
In December 2000 the respondent began proceedings against the appellant for a non-molestation order and an occupation order in respect of 10 Vestry Close, Luton. It was alleged that there was a long history of harassment and violence. The respondent sought orders to prevent him from coming to the property at Luton, except for contact with his children, now aged 9, 7 and 3.
On 22 February 2001 the order was made forbidding the appellant from using or threatening violence against the respondent, or harassing, molesting or pestering her. The appellant was further forbidden from entering certain parts of Luton as highlighted on a map annexed to the order except for the purposes of contact or attending any of the children's schools or nurseries as authorised by the Luton Borough Council, who, by then, had obtained interim care orders in respect of each of the three children. A power of arrest was attached pursuant to section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996.
On 5 November 2001 a further order was made whereby the appellant was committed to prison for six months, but that was suspended until 5 November 2003 provided that the appellant abided by the order of February 2001 and did not enter Luton.
On 7 August 2003 the respondent issued an application seeking the committal of the appellant to prison on the grounds that on 5 August he had attempted to push a bottle of perfume through the letterbox at 10 Vestry Close, pushed his way in, assaulted the respondent and was threatening and abusive to her. That application contained an important provision, namely, that he had to attend court and that the hearing would take place on 18 February 2004 at the County Court in Luton, and the address was given. It also strongly advised the appellant to obtain legal representation. On 7 August the respondent swore an affidavit in support.
That application was not served upon the appellant immediately because it is said he could not be traced. However, on 5 February 2004, the respondent issued a further application to commit the appellant in respect of further alleged incidents on Christmas Eve 2003, 4 January and 14 January 2004. It was alleged that on Christmas Eve the appellant had come to Vestry Close and tried to force his way in. An hour later it is said he returned and knocked and kicked on the doors of the house. On 4 January it was said that the appellant was seen in Vestry Close. On 14 January the respondent took the youngest child to her nursery school. It is alleged that the appellant took hold of the child's other hand and tried to pull her away from the respondent.
On 4 or 5 February the application issued on 5 August 2003 and 5 February 2004 were sent to the appellant in Winchester Prison together with a letter from the respondent's solicitors making it clear that the hearing was in the Luton County Court on 18 February and that he should attend personally or an order might be made in his absence, and that he should seek legal advice as a matter of urgency. We have a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olu-Williams v Olu-Williams
...art 6(2), art 6(3). Cases referred to A (abduction: contempt), Re[2008] EWCA Civ 1138, [2009] 1 WLR 1482, [2009] 1 FLR 1. Begum v Anam[2004] EWCA Civ 578 (29 April 2004, Benham v United Kingdom (Application no (19380/92) (1996) 22 EHRR 293. Cherwayko v Cherwayko (no 2) (Contempt, contents o......
-
Marie-Therese Elisabeth Helene Hohenberg Bailey v Anthony John Bailey
...Article 6(3) ECHR are actively engaged (see Re K (Contact: Committal Order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1559, [2003] 1 FLR 277 and Begum v Anam [2004] EWCA Civ 578); Article 6(1) entitles the respondent to a “a fair and public hearing”; that hearing is to be “within a reasonable time”; v) Article 6(......
-
Ijeoma Nkem Egeneonu v Levi Bernard Egeneonu
...Article 6(3) ECHR are actively engaged (see Re K (Contact: Committal Order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1559, [2003] 1 FLR 277 and Begum v Anam [2004] EWCA Civ 578); Article 6(1) entitles the respondent to a "a fair and public hearing"; that hearing is to be "within a reasonable time". Article 6(3) sp......
-
Evelyn Rojas Sanchez v Pawel Oboz and Another
...Article 6(3) ECHR are actively engaged (see Re K (Contact: Committal Order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1559, [2003] 1 FLR 277 and Begum v Anam [2004] EWCA Civ 578); Article 6(1) entitles the respondent to a " a fair and public hearing"; that hearing is to be " within a reasonable time"; v) Article ......