|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Hashimi v Hashimi  EWHC 3112 (Fam) (25 November 2016)
Cite as:  WLR(D) 8,  EWHC 3112 (Fam),  4 WLR 21,  1 FCR 336
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  4 WLR 21] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 8] [Help]
Royal Courts of Justice
B e f o r e :
(sitting throughout in public)
|- and -|
|SAYED GULAB SHAH HASHIMI||Respondent|
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
MR P. HEPHER (instructed by Jones Myers) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:
"I do not know and cannot speculate as to where [the child] may now be, but having regard to my very clear findings, I logically infer on all the evidence that it is reasonable to suppose that the father knows precisely where [the child] is to this day."
"The father, Sayed Gulab Shah Hashimi shall file and serve a statement of evidence dealing with the following matters no later than 4 pm on 9 June 2016 …"
There were then set out under sub-paragraphs (a) to (h) the various matters with which the statement was required to deal. In broad summary, the matters related to the current whereabouts of the child, with whom he is residing, and other questions to do with his schooling and wellbeing. A penal notice was correctly attached to that order, and prominently displayed on the front page of the order as the rules require.
"I last had contact with my child when my ex-wife came to England around five or six years ago."
That statement contains at the end, above the signature of the father, a prominent statement in bold capital letters that, "I confirm that the contents of this statement is true". Although the language may differ slightly from the usual language of a statement of truth, it is quite clear and evident that that sentence was subscribed to by the father as being a statement of truth.
"… on 9 June 2016 the respondent filed a statement in which he continued to assert that he knew nothing of the child's whereabouts."
The plain inference is that that continued assertion is dishonest and untrue.
"Whether the mother's application should proceed to a final committal hearing, or whether the application should be dismissed.
In the event that the matter proceeds to final committal hearing, what consequential directions should apply."
(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth."
Pausing there, it seems to me that the present application to commit for contempt of court falls fairly and squarely within the language of that paragraph. The father has made a statement. It is verified by a statement of truth. The gravamen of the application to commit is that it is a false statement without an honest belief in its truth.
"(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only –
(a) by the Attorney General, or
(b) with the permission of the court."
6. Attention is drawn to rule 17.6 which sets out the consequences of verifying a statement of case containing a false statement without an honest belief in its truth, and to the procedure set out in Chapter 5 of Part 37 and in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.7 of Practice Direction 37A (Applications and proceedings in relation to contempt of court)."
"… However, the Attorney General prefers a request that comes from the court to one made direct by a party to the proceedings in which the alleged contempt occurred without prior consideration by the court …"
Paragraph 4.2 of the practice direction makes absolutely clear that any application for permission to make an application to commit for contempt of court in relation to a false statement of truth must be supported by an affidavit of evidence in support of the application, which must:
"(1) identify the statement said to be false;
(2) explain -(a) why it is false; and(b) why the maker knew the statement to be false at the time it was made; and
(3) explain why contempt proceedings would be appropriate in the light of the overriding objective in Part 1."