High Court Imposes 12-Month Imprisonment for Contempt of Court in Child Return Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2792 (Fam)
Judgment on


In the High Court case “Manchester City Council v Maryan Yusef & Ors”, the Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald presided over a matter concerning violation of court orders related to the return of children to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The case elucidates key legal principles pertaining to committal proceedings, the burdens and standards of proof, and sentencing considerations in cases of contempt of court.

Key Facts

  • The father, Mr Farad Abdi, was accused of breaching court orders that required him to ensure the return of his children to the jurisdiction of England and Wales and to provide the local authority with the PIN number and passwords for his mobile phones.
  • Despite previous incarcerations for contempt, Mr Abdi continued to neglect compliance with these orders.
  • The children remained with paternal relatives in Somalia, outside the jurisdiction of their habitual residence, and Mr Abdi possessed knowledge that could facilitate their return.
  • The case traversed through successive court orders, committal hearings, and an appeal, ultimately focusing on Mr Abdi’s persistent non-compliance and the court’s efforts to enforce its orders.

The judgment applied several legal principles essential in understanding the court’s approach to this case:

Committal Proceedings

A stringent procedural requirement for committal hearings was highlighted, ensuring that they are treated as discrete hearings and that the respondent has the opportunity for legal representation. The notice of alleged contempt should be clear, specify each alleged act separately, and be properly served. Contempt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the sentencing for contempt must be a separate and discrete exercise from the finding of contempt itself.

Burden and Standard of Proof

The burden of proving the alleged contempt lies on the person or authority alleging it. As established by Hughes LJ in Re A (A Child), contempt involves deliberate disobedience. There must be proof that the contemnor is in a position to comply with the orders but has chosen not to do so. The current case reaffirmed that contempt can be established based on the surrounding evidence, making the judge sure of non-compliance.

Sentencing Considerations

Sentencing in contempt cases should address the severity of the contempt, aim to deter future violations, and be designed to ensure future compliance, as noted in Patel & Others. A sentence of imprisonment is justified only when there are no reasonable alternatives. The judgment referenced Wilkinson v Anjum, which allows for successive custodial sentences for breaches of similar obligations and urges a hearing-by-hearing approach to determine necessity and proportionality.

The harmful effect of the father’s non-compliance on the mother and children is recognized as an aggravating factor. The court’s approach follows Bean LJ in El Zubaidy v Borg, acknowledging the severe impact of non-compliance on children.


  • Mr Justice MacDonald found Mr Abdi in breach of the orders dated 11 May 2023.
  • Mr Abdi was sentenced to an immediate term of 12 months’ imprisonment for his breaches.
  • Additional orders were made to secure the children’s return and obtain necessary cooperation from Mr Abdi.
  • The judgment provided for the local authority to assist Mr Abdi in facilitating contact with relatives who may aid in the return of the children.


”Manchester City Council v Maryan Yusef & Ors” serves as a benchmark for stringent application of principles governing contempt of court. Mr Justice MacDonald’s application of the law demonstrates the court’s resolve to uphold its authority and ensure future compliance with court orders, especially where the best interests and welfare of children are paramount. This case affirms the necessity of procedural rigour in committal hearings and underscores the significance of imposing proportionate and coercive penalties to secure the compliance of contemnors with court orders.

Related Summaries