IN
THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT CASE NO. 98 CP 26 IN THE MATTER OF THE
CHILDREN ACT 1989
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES
1. The primary issue is whether the Respondent has breached the order dated 12.9.02 as amended on appeal by publishing evidence given in the county court proceedings and information likely to lead to the identification of the child as the subject of the proceedings and thus whether he is in contempt of court. It is not known whether the Respondent admits all or any of the breaches alleged.
2. If the Respondent is found to be in breach of those orders, the court would need to decide whether and if so how the Respondent should be punished for contempt.
Adrienne
Barnett Counsel for the Applicant 7 June
2005
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Committal
or
Other
Order
upon Proof of
Disobedience of a Court
order
or
Breach
of
an
Undertaking
In the SOUTHAMPTON County Court
An application having been made for committal of Kingsley Albert Van Miller to prison for disobeying the order (breach of the undertaking) dated 12 September 2002 as amended on appeal The relevant terms of the order (undertakings) are attached.
- ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL -
It is ordered that Kingsley Albert Van Miller
The order is suspended until 8 June 2006
Kingsley Albert Van Miller
be
committed
for contempt
to
prison
for a (total) period of
28 days
and will
not
be
put
into force if during
that time the
contempt-or complies with
the following terms;
(a) The Respondent do
not in any manner publish or distribute material given or produced in
evidence in the proceedings S098POOQ26 whether referred to during the
hearing of the case or in any judgment, in any publication letter,
e-mail, website, booklet or leaflet or any other oral or written
communication-
(b) The Respondent do within 7 days of service of this Order remove -from his booklets and all websites currently operated by him all evidence contained in judgments in proceedings S098CP00026.
(c) The Respondent do within 24 hours of service of the Order write to David Mortimer and serve a copy on the Applicant and the Court requesting him to remove from the website www. ukfathers. co. nk the following subsidiary website http://vww.ukfathers.co.uk/kip%20mill er%20-%20 Even%20Toddlers%20Need%20Fathers.htm and the following pages;
http://wvwukfathers.co.uk/Burge 1.2.html. BurgeZ. 1 .html,Burge 2.3.HTML, Burge 3.2,html,Burge 3.4.html,Burge3.6 html,Burge 3.8. html.www.uk fathers.co.uk/Application.html. If David Mortimer does not do so within 48 hours, the Respondent do forthwith e-mail www.eastersuch ,co .uk requesting to do the same.
Permission
for the Respondent for leave to appeal refused. If any transcript to
be made at the Respondent's expense.
And it is further ordered that in the event of non compliance any application for issue of the warrant shall be made to a judge.
PROVISION FOR COSTS
The Respondent shall pay the Applicants costs of the proceedings assessed at £300.00 by monthly payments of £50.00 to the Applicant direct, the first payment by 8 July 2005 and monthly thereafter.
And it is further ordered that in the event of non compliance any application for issue of the warrant shall be made to a judge.
PROVISION FOR COSTS
The Respondent shall pay the Applicants costs of the proceedings assessed at £300.00 by monthly payments of £50.00 to the Applicant direct, the first payment by 8 July 2005 and monthly thereafter.
Date
8 June 2005
