David Burrows uncovers some anomalies of committal proceedings
On 7 April 2009 an unrepresented James Nicholas (not his name) was sent to prison by the Bristol justices under Child Support Act 1991, s 39A (non-payment of a liability order).
It was the first occasion Mr Nicholas had come before the court on any committal application. He had been entitled to Disability Living Allowance from August 2008. The justices were aware of this. In child support assessment terms he would be subject to a nil assessment. He suffers from an arachnoid cyst in the right side of his brain. Whether the justices enquired as to his disability I do not know.
His 15 year-old daughter (as the justices also knew) had accompanied him to court. She had been living with him since September 2008. The Commission —if not the justices —must have regard to such child’s “welfare” (Child Support Act 1991, s 2) in these circumstances; but the Commission should at least have told the justices of their assessment of this child’s welfare under s 2.
Committal set aside
One of the leading 1999 cases on committal stresses
