B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
| LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL
Mr Robert Littlewood for the respondent father
Crown Copyright ©
"The respondents and/or any person served with this order must not
a) make any application for;]
b) obtain, seek to obtain, or
c) knowingly cause, permit, encourage or support any steps being taken to apply for or obtain any passport, identity card, ticket, travel warrant or other document which would enable either i) the child or ii) the respondents to leave England and Wales".
"And that the respondent Yunus Chhatbar admitted that he had disobeyed the order by applying for and obtaining a new passport by informing the UKBA that his passport had been stolen when in fact his existing and expired passports had been seized and held by the Tipstaff of the High Court on 14th November 2013".
"You and your wife and partner took your son to Northern Cyprus, I am not concerned with the rights or wrongs of the situation at that time, save to observe that you had plainly chosen your destination having in mind the fact that it is not possible to arrange extradition from Northern Cyprus. The matter was before the High Court and the High Court made an order that you surrender your passport. On your return to the United Kingdom your passport was duly seized. In the full knowledge of that order of the High Court you fraudulently applied for a fresh passport. It was a deliberate, cynical and flagrant disregard of the order of this court".
"All I need do here is extract a few propositions which are particularly apposite in the present case, where the criminal proceedings have already concluded:
i. First, as Balcombe LJ indicated in Smith v Smith, page 64, my task is to sentence for the contempt, the matters arising under sections 14 and 118 of the 1984 Act – rather than for the crimes.
ii. Second, I must take into account the outcome of the Crown Court proceedings. As it was put by Thorpe LJ in Lomas v Parle, para 48, 'it is essential that the second court should be fully informed of the factors and circumstances reflected in the first sentence.'
iii. Third, a person is not to be punished twice for the same conduct. So, as Wilson LJ put it in Slade v Slade, para 21, 'the second court should…decline to sentence for such of the conduct as has already been the subject of punishment in the criminal court.' What I must do 'is to sentence only for such conduct as was not the subject of the criminal proceedings.'"