Villiers v Villiers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE HOFFMANN,LORD JUSTICE HENRY |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] EWCA Civ J1122-2 |
| Docket Number | FC3 93/6481/F |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 November 1993 |
[1993] EWCA Civ J1122-2
(His Honour Judge Morton Jack)
Before: The Master of the Rolls (Sir Thomas Bingham) Lord Justice Hoffmann and Lord Justice Henry
FC3 93/6481/F
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SLOUGH COUNTY COURT
MR. J. W. VILLIERS appeared in person
MR. MUNBY QC (instructed by the Official Solicitor) appeared as Amicus Curiae
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLSThis is an appeal by Mr.
Villiers against an Order made by His Honour Judge Morton Jack in the Slough County Court on 18 January 1993 when the learned Judge activated a suspended sentence of 12 months' imprisonment which had been imposed on 18 August 1992, and in addition imposed a consecutive sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, both those sentences being for contempt of court.
The appeal is founded on the contention that that sentence was excessive, being a sentence which the judge was not entitled under the relevant statute to impose. Before discussing the legal basis of this appeal it is necessary quite briefly to recount the history which gives rise to it.
On 13 July 1985 Mr. Villiers was married to Anna Elizabeth Villiers. It is apparent from a chronology with which we have been supplied that before his marriage Mr. Villiers had, on a number of occasions, been in trouble with the law as a result of drink driving offences. It may be that the underlying problem in this case has something to do with the consumption of alcohol. That however, is not something that is immediately before us, although it is apparent that after the date of the marriage there were various difficulties and Mr. Villiers found himself in trouble for further drink driving offences.
It is possible, however, for present purposes to come to 1 August 1991 when, on the wife's application, His Honour Judge Marder made an ex parte non-molestation Order, taking the usual form, namely that Mr. Villiers was not to molest his wife, and containing the additional term that he was to vacate the former matrimonial home. That Order was fortified by a power of arrest, and a return date of 14 August was fixed.
Before 14 August the parties filed evidence, and on that date the Order was, in effect, confirmed. The non-molestation Order was repeated, a prohibition on communication by Mr. Villiers with his wife was imposed, and he was ordered to keep away from the former matrimonial home until further Order. That Order was also reinforced by a power of arrest.
Unhappily the power of arrest was exercised only 4 days later on 18 August 1991. On the following day Mr. Villiers was brought before His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards on that account. The learned judge on that occasion imposed a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment on 6 proven breaches, but he suspended the activation of those sentences for a period of 12 months. He continued the Order and the power of arrest for just under a further year. That, therefore, was the first sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mr. Villiers for contempt, although it was, as I have said, suspended.
Before August was over, however, Mr. Villiers had been arrested for a second time for breaches of the Order. On this occasion he came before His Honour Judge Roberts when the breaches were proved, but the learned judge thought it unnecessary to impose any sentence. The Order of 14 August accordingly remained in force and Mr. Villiers was prohibited from going within two miles of his wife's address, and the power of arrest was continued; but he was not ordered to serve any sentence of imprisonment immediately.
On 19 September 1991 there was another incident when Mr. Villiers entered the former matrimonial home and caused a great deal of damage, and that was quite a serious fracas. That led to his return before His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards on 20 September 1991. On this occasion, not surprisingly, the learned judge activated the suspended sentences, imposed sentences of 6 months for the new breaches and 9 months for the damage which Mr. Villiers had caused the day before. The effect therefore was that on this occasion, it being the second sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Villiers was sent to prison for a total of 15 months (the total of 6 months and 9 months.)
On 11 November 1991 Mr. Villiers appeared before His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards again and successfully persuaded the judge that he would abide by the Order and purged his contempt. The judge accordingly ordered his release, but made certain additional Orders restraining Mr. Villiers from assaulting, otherwise interfering with or molesting his wife, communicating with his wife save through solicitors and venturing within one mile of the former matrimonial home.
Later in November the wife gave Mr. Villiers notice to show cause why he should not be committed to prison again for further breach of the injunction. On this occasion the hearing took place before a different judge, His Honour Judge Morton Jack, on 22 November 1991. He found that 7 breaches were established against Mr. Villiers and he ordered him to go to prison for 2 years. He fixed a return date of 7 January 1992, presumably because Mr. Villiers was not present on that occasion. Mr. Villiers was, however, taken into custody very shortly thereafter. On 7 January 1992 the Order was affirmed. That, therefore, was the third sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mr. Villiers.
Meanwhile, I should mention that in November 1991 a decree nisi of divorce had been pronounced, and in May 1992 that became absolute. I mention that as a fact of some relevance, because it does appear that Mr. Villiers has had considerable difficulty in accepting that his marriage is over.
Having been sent to prison on that occasion Mr. Villiers applied on several occasions to purge his contempt, and those applications were unsuccessful, the judges no doubt bearing in mind that on the previous occasion when he had successfully purged his contempt he had broken the Order again almost immediately. However, eventually Mr. Villiers was successful; on 18 June 1992 His Honour Judge Oppenheimer did order Mr. Villiers to be discharged. He did so on Mr. Villiers' undertaking to see a psychiatrist. The other clauses of the previous Order remained in force.
Unhappily, even at that stage Mr. Villiers was unable to abide by the strict letter of the Order in July. He telephoned the petitioner three times again in August 1992. The petitioner gave notice for the respondent to show cause why he should not be committed to prison again for contempt. That matter came before his Honour Judge Holden on 18 August 1992, when, I think, there were three breaches before him. On that occasion he ordered that Mr. Villiers be committed to prison for 12 months, but he suspended that Order on the terms set out in the Order. That, accordingly, was the fourth sentence of imprisonment arising out of this matter which was imposed on Mr. Villiers. It was an Order of 12 months suspended. Even that was not the end of the story.
On 18 January 1993 Mr. Villiers appeared again before His Honour Judge Morton Jack, further breaches being established against him. The learned judge referred to five admitted breaches recorded over the last few days and said:
"What is lacking, sadly, is your ability to control yourself. Everything has been tried and none of it has worked. I must enforce the order and protect the Petitioner.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v Symes (No. 3)
...contempts, for a further committal up to the overall maximum of two years, which Mr Steinfeld accepted would still apply. 51 In Villiers v Villiers [1994] 1 WLR 493, Sir Thomas Bingham MR considered suspended sentences in the context of contempt proceedings under the 1981 Act. The Master of......
-
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik
...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 and Phillips and others v Symes (No 3) [2005] 1 WLR 2986 at [51]. The discretion is unfet......
-
Victoria Romney v Glenford Romney
...committal order is for the Judgment Creditor to apply to the Court for enforcement of such Order. This is in line with cases such asVilliers v Villiers, [1994] 2 All ER 149 at 153, where Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated as follows: "There is nothing automatic about the activation of a suspende......
-
Phillips v Symes (No. 3)
...Mr Steinfeld QC, and to whom the garland should go) had, during the course of her researches uncovered a Court of Appeal decision, Villiers v. Villiers [1994] 1 WLR, 493, where the Court of Appeal had determined that the two year maximum prison sentence imposed by s.14 applied to all senten......