![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AD v SV [2009] JRC 014A (27 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2009/2009_014A.html Cite as: [2009] JRC 014A, [2009] JRC 14A |
[New search] [Help]
[2009]JRC014A
royal court
(Samedi Division)
27th January 2009
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats King and Liddiard. |
Between |
AD |
Plaintiff |
And |
SV |
Defendant |
Advocate H. J. Heath for the Plaintiff.
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Defendant.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. The Defendant stands to be sentenced once more for breaches of injunctions imposed by the Court on the 22nd November, 2006, and as amended on the 16th February, 2007. The relevant part of the injunction for the purpose of this hearing is in the following terms:-
"restraining her, [SV],
from sending the Plaintiff, [AD],
by means of the public telecommunications system, messages calculated to annoy,
harass or threaten the Plaintiff, [AD],
or procuring another persons to do so, so that the Defendant [SV]
shall be permitted to send to the Plaintiff, [AD],
any necessary messages relating only to the children of the
parties."
2. In breach proceedings brought on 24th November, 2008, doubts were been expressed as to the Defendant's ability to engage in proceedings. In our judgment of the 24th November, we said this:-
3.
We have
since received a report from Doctor Tracy Wade dated the 8th
December, 2008, which concludes that in
her opinion SV is not suffering from any specific mental illness, but represents
rather more as an aggrieved person who is finding difficulty in coming to terms
with the loss of her marriage, which formed a very substantial part of her
identity.
4.
Ancillary
matters were are due
to be heard on the 4th to 6th February this year but have
been delayed to the 26th to -27th
March. In our judgment of 24th November,
2008, the Courtwe Court said
this:-
5.
Doctor
Wade has in her report has confirmed that that appointment
was kept but no treatment was I nin the
event prescribed. Thus in November
2008 the Court took what might be regarded as the exceptional stance
on
of giving the Defendant the
opportunity of avoiding or ameliorating punishment for her
admitted breaches, following three Judicial warnings, provided that she
complied with the injunctions in the interim.
6.
However,
notHowever, withstandingnotnot withstanding
the exceptional considerations shown by the Court on the 24th
November, it transpires that by the 16th December, 2008, the Defendant had once
again started sending text messages in breach of the injunction. The Plaintiff has produced a schedule
showing twenty-eight admitted messages sent during the period 16th December, 2008,
to 18th January,
2009. theThe the Defendant
accepts that she is in breach, once again, of the injunctions imposed upon
her.
7.
Mrs Davies
has drawn to our attention written police statements from the Defendant and the
pParties
child, JonathanJ,
concerning an incident on 18th January, 2009, in which they both
allege that the Plaintiff assaulted the Defendant by slapping her across the
face five or six times. We
understand that a criminal charge is likely. Such conduct,
unfortunate and reprehensible as it would be if it is found to have taken
place, (the Plaintiff denying denies
the accusationallegation),
does not breach any orders made by this Court. It is,
however, significant in that the Plaintiff has been advised, that as a result
of the likely or possible charge, he should have
limited contact with Jonathan J until
the case has been disposed of and he therefore will be unable to look after Jonathan
J should the Defendant be placed in
custody. Neither the Defendant'sDefendants
sister nor her parents can assist and if she were imprisoned, Jonathan
J would therefore be left with her
housekeeper.
8.
Mrs Davies
has urged us to once again, to adjourn
sentencing until after ancillaries have been completed and at
which point she says the position will be clearer
and the Court will be able to assess more fully the impact of any order that it
makes. In effect she urges us to
deal with the matter in the same way as we did last November.
9.
We are not
prepared to do that. The November
order was exceptional and the trust we place din the
Defendant has been flouted. Indeed,
neither then, nor on this occasion, dos has she
appeared to express any remorse. In our view ordinarily breaches of
injunctions should be dealt with as they arise. Furthermore, we, as with
all the professionals involved in this case, feel
strongly that what is required here is closure.
10. The Defendant has gone beyond the point which
this Court can tolerate. She
has had, up to now, some four Judicial warnings. The orders of the Court
must be obeyed. and she has had up to
now, some four Judicial warnings. We
have come perilously close to imposing a custodial sentence, but narrowly
concluded that in the interests of J, a substantial fine is the
appropriate remedy.
11. We wish to say this however, SV, that a custodial sentence
will almost certainly follow any further breaches not withstanding
the repercussions and you are formally warned of this. and youYou you must
carefully
think carefully about what you are doing
next time you are tempted to send a text message.
12. We therefore sentence SV as follows: you are
fined £2500 or two weeks imprisonment in default, in respect of the
breaches admitted on the 24th November, 2008; and £5000 or
four weeks imprisonment in default in respect of the breaches admitted today,
making a total fine of £7500, or six weeks imprisonment in default. The higher fine for the sentences
or fines imposed
for the breaches admitted today reflects the
aggravated circumstances of those breaches being committed in
the light of the earlier warnings.
You will have until the
30th April, 2009, to pay these fines, but we are going
to give you liberty to apply if ancillaries have not been completed by that
date.
13. We express the view that the Registrar dealing
with ancillaries should insure that these fines and the cost orders which we
are about to impose, will come out of the Defendant'sDefendants
share of the family assets. Finally
we order that you shall also pay the Plaintiff'sPlaintiffs
costs in respect of the Representation dated the 1st October, 2008, and the
Representation dated 20th
January, 2009, on a the indemnity
basis,. s. Such
costs to be paid, again by the
30th April 2009, with liberty to
apply should ancillaries not be completed by that date.