Abduramanoski & Abduramanoska

The Family Court of Australia heard an appeal by the husband against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed by Penny J. The sentence followed findings that the husband had committed three breaches of court orders made in the Court of Petty Sessions, Perth, pursuant to s.112AP of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The husband did not dispute the findings of contempt but appealed solely on the grounds of the severity of the sentence. The contempt arose from the husband's actions in removing the net proceeds of the sale of the parties' former matrimonial home, totalling $233,782.70, from their joint account, transferring them to his own account, and subsequently disbursing a significant portion to his family and ultimately overseas to his aunt in Switzerland.

The legal issues before the Full Court concerned the appropriate sentencing for contempt under Part XIIIB of the *Family Law Act*. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the 18-month term of imprisonment was excessive and should be reduced, and whether the sentence should be determined cumulatively or concurrently for each of the three breaches. The husband's legal team initially sought a reduction to six months, representing two months for each breach, but later conceded that a reduction to 12 months might be appropriate. The appeal also touched upon the transparency of sentencing under Part XIIIB and whether criminal sentencing guidelines were applicable.

The Full Court considered the husband's actions, which included the removal of matrimonial home sale proceeds, their transfer to various family members, and a significant remittance to his aunt in Switzerland, all in contravention of court orders. The court noted that the husband had failed to comply with orders to provide addresses of recipients of the funds and to direct his aunt to return the money to the joint account. The trial judge had found these actions constituted a "flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court," a key consideration for imposing a custodial sentence for contempt. The Full Court, in reviewing the severity of the sentence, had regard to established principles of sentencing for contempt, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and upholding the authority of the court.

The Full Court ultimately allowed the appeal in part, reducing the husband's sentence to 12 months imprisonment. While acknowledging the gravity of the contempt, the court found the original 18-month sentence to be demonstrably excessive. The court ordered that the sentence of 12 months imprisonment was to commence from the date of the trial judge's original order.