Ming v Tacklyn, Ming v Wilson

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 12 April 2002
• Date: 12 April 2002
• Docket Number: Appellate Jurisdiction No. 104 of 2000
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

In the Supreme Court of Bermuda

Ward, CJ

Appellate Jurisdiction No. 104 of 2000

Appellate Jurisdiction No. 105 of 2000

Edward Warren Ming

Appellant

-and-

Karen Ann Tacklyn

Respondent

Edward Warren Ming

Appellant

-and-

Bonnie-Lynn Wilson

Respondent

Mr. Horseman for the Appellant

Ms. Tacklyn in Person

Mr. Horseman for the Appellant

Ms. Wilson Unrepresented

Re Young and Harston's ContratELR (1886) 31 ChD 168

Poplar Guardians v MartinELR [1905] 1 KB 728

Affiliation Act 1976, s. 17

Affiliation — Appeals against terms of imprisonment — Arrears of maintenance — Work release orders — Wilful default — Statutory framework

JUDGMENT

These are two appeals against consecutive terms of imprisonment under section 17 (3) of the Affiliation Act 1976.

The appellant is the father of two children namely Shaundrika Tacklyn who was born on the 3^rd day of August 1984 and Nerah—Lynn Wilson who was born on the 25^th day of October 1988.

By Order dated the 31^st day of August 1988 he was ordered to pay $50 per week towards the maintenance of Shaundrika, and by Order dated the 7^th day of January 1999 he was ordered to pay $52 per week towards the maintenance of Nerah—Lynn.

On the 1^st day of February 2000 his payments were in arrears in the sum of $21,123.14 with respect to Shaundrika and $1,437.00 with respect to Nerah—Lynn. The appellant is among the most delinquent of fathers who pay maintenance through the Collecting Office of the Magistrates' Court.

The learned Magistrate sitting in the Family Court committed the appellant to prison for a term of 90 days on the 1^st day of February 2000. He re-committed him to prison for a second term of 90 days on the 24^th day of April 2000. His arrears in the Tacklyn matter then stood at $21,623.14, an increase of $500 since 1^st February 2000. On the 14^th July 2000 he was committed to prison for the third time for a term of 90 days. His arrears were then $22,323.14. On 11^th October 2000 when his arrears stood at $22,948.14 he was committed to prison for the fourth time for a term of 90 days. On the 5^th January 2001 with his arrears at $23,523.14 he was committed to prison for a fifth time, without a break, for a term of 90 days.

Against the final order the appellant has appealed.

The learned Magistrate set out his reasons in detail. He said:

‘This Respondent is so delinquent it is unbelievable. He has been given more chances than a lottery.’

He reviewed the history of the matter, the...