Father Sentenced to 12 Months for Contempt in Child Custody Case, Mother Allowed to Publicize Non-Compliance

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3042 (Fam)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of H v Usama Ikram Butt & Anor ([2023] EWHC 3042 (Fam)) concerns a committal proceeding in the Family Division of the High Court of Justice where the applicant, the mother of the child (referred to as ‘E’), sought the committal of Mr. Usama Ikram Butt (the ‘Father’) for contempt of court. This was driven by the Father’s failure to comply with multiple court orders requiring him to return ‘E’ from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the United Kingdom (UK). The case also addresses the issue of whether the mother should be permitted to publicise the father’s non-compliance.

Key Facts

The Father had previously been granted a Child Arrangements Order, which was violated when he took ‘E’ from the UK to the UAE. This led the courts to issue numerous orders for the return of ‘E’, which the Father failed to observe. The contention of the Father centered on his own health and the assertion that ‘E’ required specialist support for autism available in the UAE, arguments which the High Court repeatedly rejected.

In response to his non-compliance, the present committal application was launched, and the Mother sought leave to publicise the Father’s failure to comply to facilitate her efforts in securing ‘E’s return.

The legal principles invoked in the decision involve the standards necessary for a finding of contempt of court as outlined in Masri v Consolidated Contractors Ltd [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) and family law considerations delineated in cases like Bailey v Bailey (Committal) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 5, and Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570.

The case draws upon the principle that contempt of court requires knowledge of the order, conduct amounting to breach, and awareness of the breaching nature of that conduct. It must be proven to the criminal standard—beyond a reasonable doubt.

The decision also examines the appropriate sanctioning for such contempt, using guidance on family law sentencing principles, with a particular focus on Hale v Tanner, which emphasizes that family cases raise different considerations from other civil law cases.

Furthermore, Tickle v Herefordshire County Council [2022] EWHC 1017 is referred to, which balances the rights to privacy (ECHR Article 8) against the rights to freedom of expression (ECHR Article 10). The court here emphasizes the importance of considering the impact of publicity on children in their assessment.

Outcomes

The court found that the Father had deliberately disobeyed the court orders and breached a total of ten orders to return ‘E’ to the UK. It therefore ruled that a prison sentence of 12 months was warranted, rejecting the notion of suspension due to the severity and ongoing nature of the contempts.

Concerning the publicity request, it was decided that suspending the effectivity of the order for 28 days would allow the Father time to rectify the situation and comply with the court orders. If the Father chose not to comply within this window, the mother would be allowed to publicize the Father’s non-compliance.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in H v Usama Ikram Butt & Anor demonstrates the court’s commitment to enforcing its orders and upholding the rights of the child and the custodial parent in family law matters. By imposing a custodial sentence on the Father and permitting the Mother to publicize the matter, the court underlines the severe repercussions of flouting court orders. The emphasis on balancing rights under Articles 8 and 10 while prioritizing the child’s best interests highlights the unique complexities of family law proceedings in the UK’s legal system.