Cotterhill and Cotterhill

[2007] FamCA 510

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COTTERHILL & COTTERHILL [2007] FamCA 510

FAMILY LAW - ORDERS - Contravention - Child abducted - Sentenced to term of imprisonment

APPLICANT: MRS COTTERHILL

RESPONDENT: MR COTTERHILL

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: AMBER BUCKLAND OF LEGAL AID QUEENSLAND

FILE NUMBER: BRF2714 of 2004

DATE DELIVERED: 26 April 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Barry J

HEARING DATE: 23 and 26 April 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Selfridge of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Mother

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Baldwins Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Fenton of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Father

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: O’Sullivan Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Andrew of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer

Orders

ON CHARGES THAT:

1)Between 30 August 2004 and 3 October 2004 you contravened a Court Order by failing to return the child, a daughter, born … May 2003 to the Mother’s care pursuant to Order 1 of the Orders of the G Magistrates Court dated 30 August 2004 and such failure to return the child amounted to a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court.

HAVING ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY to the said charge the Respondent Father is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.

2)That between 30 August 2004 and 3 October 2004 you contravened a Court Order by deliberately evading police detection, in breach of Recovery Orders that were made on 30 August 2004 in the G Magistrates Court pursuant to section 67X of the Family Law Act 1975, with knowledge of the existence of such Order and such contravention amounted to a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court.

HAVING ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY to the said charge the Respondent Father is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one (1) month.

3)That between 22 September 2005 and 27 September 2005 you contravened a Court Order by failing to spend time with the said child at the paternal grandmother’s residence or at the Respondent’s residence with the paternal grandmother present pursuant to Order 5 of the Family Court Orders dated 23 March 2005 and such contravention of that Order amounted to a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court.

HAVING ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY to the said charge the Respondent Father is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one (1) month.

4)That on or around 5.00 pm on 26 September 2005 you contravened a Court Order by failing to return the said child to the G Post Office into the care of the Mother pursuant to Court Orders 2 and 3 of the Family Court Orders dated 23 March 2005 and such contravention of that Order amounted to a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court.

HAVING ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY to the said charge the Respondent Father is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one (1) month.

5)Between the 25 September 2005 and 8 June 2006 you contravened a Court Order by depriving the child of the right to live with or reside with the Mother pursuant to Order 1 of the Orders made in the G Magistrates Court dated 30 August 2004, Order 3 of Family Court Orders dated 8 November 2004, Recovery Order 2 of Orders made in the N Magistrates Court dated 28 September 2005 and Order 6 of Family Court Orders dated 22 May 2006 and such contravention amounted to a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court.

HAVING ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY to the said charge the Respondent Father is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) months.

6)Between the 28 September 2005 and 8 June 2006 you contravened a Court Order when you deliberately evaded police detection in breach of Recovery Orders that were made on 28 September 2005 in the N Magistrates Court pursuant to section 67X of the Family Law Act 1975 and such contravention amounted to a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court.

HAVING ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY to the said charge the Respondent Father is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.

ALL SENTENCES ARE TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRF2714 of 2004

MRS COTTERHILL

Applicant

And

MR COTTERHILL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On Monday 23 April the respondent, the father pleaded guilty to six charges of contempt brought pursuant to s 112AP of the Family Law Act.

2. The law has now been amended subsequent to 1 July 2006 so that as I understand charges similar to this are now contained in a different section of the Act.  However there is a saving provision that offences committed prior to 1 July 2006 should be dealt with under the old provisions, that is the normal procedure and that is what has been done.  I am satisfied that the proper format has been followed.

3. The charges arise out of the respondent's abduction of his daughter from the mother's care on two occasions during the period 2004 to 2006.  The first occasion was from 30 August 2004 to 3 October 2004.  The second occasion was from 27 September 2005 through to 8 June 2006.

4. The six charges may be summarised as follows:

   (1)failing to return the child to the mother's care after the Magistrates Court G made an Order on 30 August 2004 for the child to reside with the mother;

   (2)in the period from 30 August 2004 to 3 October 2004 he deliberately evaded the police after a Recovery Order had been issued;

   (3)in the period 22 September 2005 to 27 September 2005 he failed to have his mother, that is the child's paternal grandmother, supervise the time that he spent with his daughter contrary to Order (5) of the Orders of this Court of 23 March 2005;

   (4)that on 26 September 2005 he failed to return the child to the mother's care as he was required to do by the terms of paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Orders of 23 March 2005;

   (5)what I would refer to as the major charge is that between 25 September 2005 and 8 June 2006 he deprived the child of the right to live with her mother which was contrary to Court Orders that were then in place.  They were Consent Orders which had been made some six months previously;

   (6)relates to the fact that during that period of some nine months the father deliberately evaded the police and did so in quite a sophisticated fashion.

5. In relation to each charge it is said the facts are such they constituted a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court so that it was not merely a contravention of a Court Order, it amounted to a contempt of Court.  I am satisfied that is the case.

6. The six charges were read out to the respondent, he also had before him a copy of the further amended application for contempt which had been filed on 2 October last year.  As I have noted, the respondent pleaded guilty to each charge.

7. The applicant mother, the respondent father and the independent children's lawyer were all represented by counsel.

8. The applicant and the respondent are the natural parents of the child in question who was born on … May 2003.  She will be 4 years of age next week. 

9. At the commencement of the hearing the father read to the Court a prepared statement, in fact he read three prepared statements, the first apologising to the Court for his conduct in deliberately breaching its orders; the second statement was directed to the applicant mother and the third to his 3 year old daughter, apologising for his actions.  The statements were eloquent in their terms and the father's voice was cracking with emotion.  There appeared to be a sincere contrition for his behaviour. 

10. I note that in between the two periods of abduction a family report had been ordered by the Court and Mr C, of the Legal Aid Office, prepared a report of 10 March 2005.  In relation to that first abduction of the period of five weeks, at paragraph 58 Mr C observes:

    "[The father] claims that he had no intention of permanently keeping [the child] separated from [the mother] and he pleaded ignorance about issues of residence and [the mother’s] recovery order.  He suggests that he tried on numerous occasions to telephone [the mother] but she would not accept his calls.  [The father] agrees that he took [the child] to North Queensland but insists that it was only intended to be for a period of 10 days."

11. In the applicant's affidavit at paragraph 38, she sets out her version of an incident which occurred on 11 August 2004, some three weeks before the first abduction.  This was what I shall refer to as the assault incident where the father of the mother's older child, A, attacked the father with a metal baseball bat.  He (A’s father) has been subsequently dealt with in the District Court in Brisbane.  Mr O was fined $2500 on a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm.  The mother's version of this event is in the following terms:

    "I recall in or around 11 August 2004 the respondent visited the [C] property.  As I was still largely unable to drive the respondent offered to assist me in collecting my other child [A] from the train station.  We were late to collect [A] and [A] was rather upset as a result.  Accordingly the respondent and her got into an argument which resulted in the respondent slapping [A] across the face.  I alighted from the car with [the child] and the respondent left without us.  [A] telephoned her father who collected us and delivered us home.  When we arrived the respondent was at my home and [A’s] father and the respondent had a physical altercation.  I told the respondent to leave.  As he prepared to leave he stated to me words to the effect that he was going to plan his retribution.”

12. Now regardless as to the rights or wrongs or the circumstances surrounding the actual assault incident, the relevance of this is, according to the mother's evidence, it was at that point in time the father commenced to plan his retribution and he proceeded to do so on a very calculated basis.

13. It is certainly at odds with what he told Mr C for the purpose of the family report that he had no intention of permanently keeping the child separated from her mother.  I find it likely that the threat of retribution was made on 11 August.

14. On the evening of 29 August, that is some 18 days later, the respondent entered the mother’s home during the evening and removed the sleeping child from the mother's household.  The child was 15 months old at the time.

15. The respondent, through his counsel, conceded that it was the assault incident which motivated him to engage in the conduct that he did but why he should take it out on the child and/or the mother when it is Mr O who has committed the assault, is not entirely clear.

16. Whilst the respondent had his daughter in his care in the period August to October 2004, his solicitors filed an application seeking a discharge of the Orders made by the Stipendiary Magistrate on an ex parte basis on 30 August.  Interestingly he sought Orders that the mother should only have supervised contact with her daughter.  This was consistent with the allegations that he was making that the mother had physically abused the child and she, that is the mother, was regularly taking illicit drugs and generally engaging in inappropriate parenting.  There is a high level of inconsistency in the father's allegations about such matters.  I am satisfied there is little truth in the allegations that have been made.  Counsel for the father conceded as much at the outset.

17. During the period of the first abduction the mother says at paragraph 51(e) of her affidavit:

    "On Saturday 4 September I returned to my residence at [C]".                

    This is about a week after the child was taken.

    "On arrival I found that my house had been broken into and all the furniture out of [the child’s] room was gone, her clothes were gone and some of my clothes, in particular my lingerie, was missing.  Certain items that were special to me were also missing.  I reported this to the police.  I recall that when I attended the respondent's premises in 2005 after the second abduction of [the child], I saw that some of those items were in the respondent's house.”

18. It is a circumstance of aggravation of the first abduction that when arrested at a strip club in Brisbane on 3 October, some five weeks after the abduction, the father refused to inform the police for a period of some five hours of the whereabouts of the child.  He was separately charged over that incident.  Exhibit 1 reveals that he was placed on a six-month good behaviour bond on 13 July 2005.  I note from the Magistrates Court file that he had been remanded on about nine occasions at his own request prior to being dealt with by the Court.  It would appear that he contested the matter although that is not entirely clear from the file.

19. I accept that it is significant that the second abduction occurred a little over two months after entering into that good behaviour bond.  The reality is he elected to take matters into his own hands and not return his daughter to the mother's care at the conclusion of a contact period.  Whether his allegations and his beliefs that the mother was mistreating the child were irrational and illogical on his part or whether they had a degree of truth, the reality is such matters are to be dealt with by the Courts of the land.

20. Factors which would lead to a Court imposing a heavy penalty in this matter include there were two separate abductions, the second occurring less than 12 months after the Recovery Order was executed ending the first abduction.  On neither occasion did the respondent voluntarily return the child.  She had to be returned after the execution of a Recovery Order on each occasion.

21. The second abduction occurred whilst on a good behaviour bond made specifically under the terms of the Family Law Act.  The respondent had made serious allegations against the mother to justify his conduct but I am satisfied that such allegations are largely without foundation. 

22. The present charges were brought in June last year.  The respondent has at all times indicated an intention to contest the charges.  I would estimate - I have not gone back through the Court file to detail this - but I would estimate the matter has been before me some eight or nine times.  On many of those occasions he was legally represented.  On each occasion he reiterated his intention to contest the matter.  The effect of such conduct is that it has caused considerable expense to the mother and the independent children's lawyer.  I accept that they are legally aided but it is still a cost and a significant cost to the taxpayer.  It exemplifies a lack of remorse and generally caused prolonged distress which the mother has been subjected to by his conduct since mid-2004.

23. Normally Courts would give a reduction in sentence for an early plea of guilty; that is commonly done in all jurisdictions in my experience.  I will take into account the fact that the respondent ultimately has pleaded guilty but the lateness of the plea mitigates against a significant reduction in sentence.  I am satisfied that the respondent has shown no respect for the legal system in a wide variety of ways over the last two years.

24. For the respondent it was submitted that he has no previous convictions.  Reference was made to the apology which had been proffered to the Court, to the mother and to the child.  The apologies had been hand written, they were quite moving when the respondent read the apologies to purge his contempt. 

25. In entering the pleas of guilty, as I have said, counsel for the father indicated his client did not pursue the allegations concerning the mother's parenting and went so far as to say that his client's allegations largely arose from an irrational belief on his part arising out of the serious assault incident. 

26. On Monday, during the first day of this hearing, the respondent sought an adjournment to obtain a psychologist's report, to obtain some character references and to put forward an affidavit by himself.  For the brief reasons I gave at the time I acceded to the adjournment.

27. On today's date the respondent has produced a very lengthy affidavit which rehashes all the old allegations against the mother, the neglect, the drug-taking, the presumably physical violence causing numerous bruises to the child and such like.  He adds to his affidavit detailed diary entries of his visits with the child at the contact centre.  It would be interesting to know whether the contact centre's records were ever subpoenaed and whether they ever made such observations because in my experience, they invariably do if the child attends with bruises or any form of signs of abuse.

28. I note in the report of Mr C of March 2005 at paragraph 65, the father concedes that the mother is a wonderful mum and a loving human being very spiritual.  I accept that in that paragraph he then goes on to damn her with faint praise but later he added, “She is not a bad mother, just a little irresponsible.”

29. The father entered into Consent Orders in this Court in March 2005 providing for the mother to be the primary care-giver.  I would find it astonishing that the father would enter into such Consent Orders if the allegations that he made had any veracity at all.

30. The mother in this matter prepared for trial and had a number of affidavits of witnesses roundly rejecting criticism of her parenting and being confirmatory of her being a very devoted parent.  As I have noted, in any event, whether the father persists with his allegations of the mother's neglect and poor parenting, it is no excuse for abduction of a child for nine months or for the other breaches which have been particularised in the complaints against him.

31. There was a further submission for the father, based on a medical report of today's date prepared by Dr G.  Dr G is a general practitioner.  The observation was made that as a general practitioner he was not able to diagnose depression and the other diagnosis that he makes in his report.  I would be of the view that he is perfectly entitled to make that diagnosis; it is the weight to be attached to the diagnosis but I would have no reason to doubt Dr G's qualifications to make an appropriate diagnosis.  Largely he would have to rely on the account of events given to him by the father.  The father’s credibility is lacking and seriously lacking in many respects - I will refer to that in more detail later - but one would question the legitimacy of much of what he has told Dr G.  Suffice it to say, to the extent that he is stressed and depressed and anxious, it largely arises from his own conduct in engaging in the conduct which he has to the detriment of many others.

32. A further submission was made that the father has the support of his elderly mother and his sister who have been present in Court throughout the hearing of this matter.  The father has been caring for his elderly mother, driving her and assisting her.

33. It was submitted, very tellingly, and I think a very powerful submission, that not seeing his daughter for the last 12 months is a significant detriment to a loving father.  I accept that is so, but as was contended for in reply, the father has not made any application to the Court to see his daughter.

34. Reliance was placed on a series of personal references.  I note a number of them are two and a half years old, dated back in October, November 2004, they have obviously been made in circumstances where the reference-givers would not be aware of the full facts of this matter.  A number of them relate to the father's business acumen and the operation of the business X Company.  They are all dated October 2004 or some of them are.  It would appear that he was bankrupt and the business was going downhill at or around that time.  I take into account that people have given personal references to the respondent but they do not appear to have been personal references given specifically with full knowledge of the facts of this matter and that is always important when people put themselves forward as referees in matters such as this.

1. It was submitted that he has spent a fortnight on remand; that was largely as a result of charges preferred under State law, but I accept that they relate to the same set of facts and I will take that into account in considering the issue of sentence.

2. As I have said, there is a wide disparity on the facts.  I am not at all satisfied as to the veracity of the father.  A few examples will suffice.  Counsel for the respondent said the father sold his Toyota motor vehicle for cash and he used the cash to support his daughter and himself in the period from September 2005 to June 2006.  He was bankrupt at the relevant time.  He told police in the record of interview that the proceeds of the sale of the car went to the company.  One version has got to be wrong.  I suspect the version he has given to his counsel is the more correct version.  He had to live on assets or cash income from somewhere. 

3. The father's affidavit produced on today's date, in making reference to his business he said that he had a turnover in excess of $1 million, had significant numbers of staff and generally left one with the impression that the business had been thriving.  He told the police in the record of interview, question 129, "The company was in a horrible amount of debt".  That company apparently was bankrupted on the application of the Taxation Commissioner with a debt of some $65,000.

4. As I have said, Monday last the adjournment was sought in circumstances where the father's attitude had been one of seemingly genuine contrition.  By today's date his position had swung around almost a hundred and eighty degrees.  The lengthy affidavit renews all the allegations against the mother, completely at odds with the apologies that he proffered and completely at odds with the statements he instructed his counsel to make.

5. I am extremely sceptical of the father's allegations against the mother for the following reasons: there is no corroborative evidence - contact centres, Department of Child Safety, other people who had witnessed these bruises, where are they?  It is contrary to the evidence of the mother's numerous witnesses.  It is contrary to what the father told Mr C who was in the position of interviewing the parties and the child back in March 2005. 

6. The father agreed to the Consent Orders in March 2005.  It is a matter of wonderment why the father would consent to orders giving the mother the care of the child for such lengthy periods of time if he was of the view the child was at such risk.  Indeed, in his propositions that he put to Mr C he was proposing, as I understood it, a shared care arrangement.  Mr C himself queried why the father would do that if there was any veracity in the allegations that he made.

7. I noted throughout the evidence in this matter a tendency for the father not to accept responsibility for his own conduct.  He certainly has a propensity to blame others.  The change of approach from the father from one of apology and contrition and non-disparagement, to one of outright hostility and renewal of allegations seems to be blamed on the submissions made by counsel for the independent children's lawyer.  The connection escapes me.  I accept it is usual for the independent children's lawyer to be neutral in contravention applications but that is not always necessary nor is it always appropriate.  I found the submissions by counsel for the independent children's lawyer of assistance and I would not be critical of the role taken by the independent children's lawyer in this matter.

8. I am satisfied the matter is one that calls for the imposition of a custodial sentence.  I intend to impose six separate sentences reflecting the degree of seriousness of each breach.  The father, as I have said, is an undischarged bankrupt, he has no assets and no income.  Having regard to the seriousness of the breaches, having regard to sentences imposed in similar circumstances in other cases, I am satisfied that a fine option is out of the question.  In any event, his financial position would militate against it.  Community Service Orders and bonds for a similar reason are not appropriate.

9. The most serious aspect is charge 5, the abduction of the child for a period of nine months.  It was the second time within 12 months that he committed such an offence and he was on a good behaviour bond at the time.  It was callous, it was premeditated.  There was but one phone call made some six or seven months after the abduction when contact was made with the mother and that was done in the most controlling of terms, downright blackmail "you can see your child providing I remain the primary care giver and you don't go to the Courts".  The mother, to her credit, ignored that and informed the father that it was too late.

10. There is a widespread view in certain sections of our community that this Court does not enforce its orders.  A situation arises in a variety of ways such as when a parent, usually a father, is not spending time with a child, contrary to Court orders.  It may be the mother has alienated the child, it may be the child finds the whole exercise too disturbing, maybe the father's behaviour leads the child not to want to go but each case has to be assessed on its merits, but there is a perception that the Court does not do enough to enforce its orders.

11. The view that I have always taken is that orders will be complied with.  It is very important for the public perception that it is appreciated that this Court views very seriously when its orders are blatantly contravened.  I have had regard to all the submissions made.  I have found all of the submissions to be of high quality and relevant.

12. I was helpfully referred by counsel for the independent children's lawyer to three recent authorities.  I have to confess that I had overlooked these matters although when my attention was drawn to them, I was aware of them.  The first case is the matter of Schwarzkopf. It is reported at [1992] FLC 92 303. The effect of that decision was that the imposition of a sentence under part 13A was not a Federal sentence within the Crimes Act, consequently neither the State Remission Provisions nor the sentencing principles of the Commonwealth Crimes Act applied.

13. The next matter was the case of Rutherford in 1999; the third case was Abduramanoski v Abduramanoska in (2005) FLC 93 215. The Full Court there consisting of Kay, Holden and Bolland JJ held that the following factors are relevant in dealing with contempts under s 112AP:

    "Part 13B provides a code for dealing with contempt under the Family Law Act. A trial Judge must comply with the procedures set out in r 2108 of the Family Law Rules 2004 on hearing the application. The allegations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The procedure is a summary one conducted in accordance with the rules and the guidelines for the conduct of a criminal trial do not apply. If a custodial sentence is to be imposed transparency will be afforded in an appropriate case if general criminal law sentencing procedures are adopted, including imposing sentence for each offence to be served, either cumulatively or concurrently, but such procedure is not mandatory. State and Federal sentencing laws have no application. In imposing penalty reference to relevant factors to be considered provides a useful framework but ultimately the penalty should be structured having regard to the individual facts of the particular case."

14. You can stand up respondent.  The total sentence I intend to impose on you is 12 months imprisonment.  That will be made up as follows: on the first charge where you abducted the child for a period of five weeks, you did not voluntarily return the child, I would impose a sentence of six months imprisonment for that offence.

15. On the second charge where you deliberately evaded police detection, I note that there would have been some period of time where you would not have had communicated to you the terms of the ex parte Court Order but it appears by your plea and by other evidence before the Court, that you were aware of the existence of the Order and still failed to comply with it.  I would impose a sentence of one month imprisonment.

16. For failing to have your mother in attendance as a supervisor which is the third charge in this matter, I am prepared to impose a sentence of one month imprisonment.  The view that I take is that it was an opportunity given to you after the first abduction that the mother was prepared in the way that she was to enter into Consent Orders to provide for you to spend time with your child in your own environment, provided your mother was present.  I have to say that in future cases I will be much more sceptical when asked to have close relatives or friends be sole supervisors.  Of itself that would not normally lead to a custodial sentence but for your abduction for which I have previously imposed a sentence, but it was part of your overall plan and in the circumstances I view it as a flagrant challenge to the authority of the Court that you embarked on that and believe a sentence of one month imprisonment is appropriate.

17. The fourth charge is that on 26 September when you were due to return the child you failed to do so, you certainly did that.  If you had returned the child the following day, the following week, the following month, I am not saying all would have been forgiven but the matter would have been far, far less serious.  You did not do that, you are going to have to face the consequences of that but in relation to the failure to return on that specific date I would impose a sentence of one month.

18. In relation to the fifth charge and that is that you abducted this child for a period of nine months in the circumstances that I have outlined, I propose to impose a sentence of 12 months imprisonment.  It was the second abduction, it was while you were on a good behaviour bond, it was premeditated and there was scant regard shown to the feelings of the mother.  She did not know whether the child was alive or dead until mid-April when you made one solitary phone call in very controlling terms.  The terms of that phone call are appended in the evidence which I have perused.  I believe they are annexed to the mother's affidavit and they make for very sad reading indeed.

19. In relation to the final charge that you deliberately evaded police detection, I note that you changed the child's hairstyle, the child was not referred to by her normal Christian name, you had three mobile phones all in different names, you used bank accounts in other’s names, you engaged in frequent changes of address, you enlisted the support of friends old and new and presumably you had family assistance.  It was quite a sophisticated operation.  The facts of that behaviour over such a lengthy period to my mind calls for a sentence of six months imprisonment.

20. I commend the Federal Police for their dedication in this matter.  It is a matter for them how they proceed with further investigations of those persons who aided and abetted the respondent to abduct his daughter in the circumstances that he did.  To my mind it is about time these people who aid and abet should be brought to account and if that became common knowledge through the community there may be a lot less of such conduct going on.

21. I appreciate that the six separate charges really boil down to two separate incidents.  I have considered the matter and deem it appropriate to make all sentences concurrent, that is, whilst I have imposed a sentence of six months here and one month there and 12 months there they will not be cumulative, you do not add them up.  The maximum sentence you will serve is 12 months but it is not a Federal offence, it is not a State offence.  That is the sentence, there is no remission and I have taken that into account.  I would have configured the Orders differently if I had intended to make the sentences cumulative.  I believe the sentences are in line with previous sentences imposed in circumstances not dissimilar to the facts of this matter. 

22. I will not make an Order for publication.  The matter can be reported by the media if it wishes to but the parties cannot be identified. 

23. I will not make an Order for costs, it does not seem appropriate in the circumstances.

24. RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

25. The further amended application for contravention filed 2 October 2006 is dismissed.

    RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

26. I direct that within 48 hours the sum of $20,000 posted as security for bail be released to Mr J Cotterhill.

    RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

27. I will add to the bottom of the Warrant of Commitment: the person named in this warrant has been committed to prison under the Family Law Act 1975. The person is not a Federal offender and is not entitled to have the period specified by the Court reduced by any remissions, furthermore the person is not eligible to participate in any State pre-release schemes which apply to Federal offenders.

I certify that the preceding sixty-one (61) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Barry

Associate: 

Date:  26 April 2007

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as COTTERHILL & COTTERHILL