Fahad Abdi v Manchester City Council & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 1214
Mohammed El Zubaidy v Tanya Borg
15 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 148
Court of Appeal
A dad took his daughters to Libya and refused to bring them back, despite multiple court orders. He's been sent to jail again, even though he's already served several years. The judges said his actions were so serious, another jail sentence is fair, even if it won't make him bring the girls back.
Key Facts
- •Mohammed El Zubaidy (father) took daughters A and C to Libya in 2015, leaving them with the mother Tanya Borg (mother).
- •Father has repeatedly flouted court orders to return the children, resulting in four previous prison sentences for contempt of court.
- •A Libyan court granted custody to the mother, but the father prevents the children's return to the UK.
- •Sir Jonathan Cohen sentenced the father to 12 months imprisonment for further contempt of court.
- •The father appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive given previous sentences and lack of coercive effect.
Legal Principles
Successive terms of imprisonment can be imposed for repeated breaches of court orders related to child abduction, even if the cumulative sentence exceeds the maximum for a single contempt.
Re W (Abduction: Committal) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196
When determining whether to impose further imprisonment for contempt, the court must consider the facts of the case, previous sentences, potential criminal sentence for similar conduct, and the coercive effect of the sentence.
Re W (Abduction: Committal) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196
Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 limits imprisonment for contempt to two years for a superior court, but this does not prevent successive sentences for repeated contempts.
Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.14
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the judge's decision was not in error. The father's actions were exceptionally serious, causing significant harm to the mother and children. While the coercive effect of further imprisonment might be limited, the sentence remains appropriate punishment for the flagrant disregard of court orders. The court distinguished the case from those where further imprisonment served no purpose.