A public relations consultant has been handed a 12-month jail term after a judge concluded that he breached orders made during a family court fight over money with his ex-wife.
Austrian princess Marie-Therese Hohenberg Bailey, 49, argued that Anthony Bailey, 52, was in contempt of court.
Mr Bailey disputed her allegations.
Mr Justice Peel ruled in Ms Hohenberg Bailey’s favour at a public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London on Tuesday.
Ms Hohenberg Bailey, who lives in Twickenham, south-west London, was at the hearing.
Mr Bailey was not in court but was represented by lawyers.
Barrister Chris Barnes, who led Mr Bailey’s legal team, said he understood that his client was in Portugal.
A family court judge had overseen a dispute over money at private family court hearings in London.
Judge Sarah Gibbons ruled that Ms Hohenberg Bailey should receive more than £2 million – a figure that included her legal fees.
Mr Justice Peel heard that she was still owed about £1 million.
Mr Bailey had breached orders requiring him to take steps to realise assets, and an order designed to prevent him leaving the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, Mr Justice Peel concluded.
The judge said Mr Bailey’s behaviour had been designed to deprive Ms Hohenberg Bailey of money she was entitled to.
He said Mr Bailey had “obstructed the court” at “almost every possible opportunity”.
Mr Justice Peel said a custodial sentence was justified, and Mr Bailey would serve six months before being eligible for release on licence.
The judge also said Mr Bailey could comply with orders and apply to purge his contempt.
Lawyers representing Ms Hohenberg Bailey said Mr Bailey had highlighted his involvement with the Catholic Church and had been made an OBE for his work as an inter-faith campaigner.
But they said his “willingness to lie” and the “blatant contempt” he had shown to the court was inconsistent with the “pious image” he presented.
Detail of Mr Bailey’s career and examples of his work are listed at www.anthonybailey.org/
The website says Mr Bailey is an interfaith campaigner for charitable and religious bodies
It features a photograph of him with former prime minister Tony Blair and says that, between 2002 and 2010, Mr Bailey advised the Department for Education on the development of the government’s academies programme.
Mr Barnes argued in mitigation that the judge was dealing with Mr Bailey’s first committal applications and argued that the breach of the order relating to travel was “more technical”.
Mr Justice Peel made several criticisms of Mr Bailey.
“Stripped to its bare essentials, the husband’s behaviour has been designed to disobey orders… and deprive her of a sum to which she is entitled,” he said.
“His behaviour has obstructed the court at almost every possible turn.”
He said there had been “major question marks” about Mr Bailey’s lifestyle, health and travel.
The judge said Mr Bailey had “deliberately left the country”.
Lawyers said, after the hearing, that Mr Bailey would face arrest and imprisonment if he returned to England or Wales.
Mr Bailey had told the judge in a written witness statement, how he and Ms Hohenberg Bailey had married in 2007 in Portugal and separated in 2016.
He said he had “huge debts and loans” amounting to more than £2 million, survived on Universal Credit and told the judge that his company, Anthony Bailey Limited, had been wound up in October 2020.
Mr Bailey said he found his ex-wife’s committal application “deeply distressing”.
He said it was his “full intention” to resume work “in order to meet my financial responsibilities”.
Mr Bailey argued that Ms Hohenberg Bailey had “failed to prove to the court beyond all reasonable doubt” that he had wilfully breached orders.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here