Contempt Of Court Landmark Rulings
Types of Contempt
Civil Contempt
Usually involves failure to comply with court orders (e.g., not paying maintenance, breaching injunctions). The purpose is coercive—to compel compliance.
Criminal Contempt
Acts that undermine the authority of the court or interfere with the administration of justice, such as:
Scandalizing the court (publishing material that lowers public confidence).
Interfering with witnesses or jurors.
Breaching reporting restrictions or gag orders.
Contempt in the face of the court (disrupting proceedings).
Legal Basis
Contempt powers derive from common law and statutory sources (e.g., Contempt of Court Act 1981 governs reporting restrictions).
The courts have inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt.
📚 Landmark Cases on Contempt of Court
1. Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1974) — The “Spycatcher” Case
Facts:
The UK government sought to prevent the publication of "Spycatcher," a book by a former MI5 agent, alleging breach of confidentiality and contempt of court.
Legal Issue:
Did the injunction restraining publication amount to an abuse of contempt powers?
Ruling:
The House of Lords held that injunctions to prevent publication are justified where publication would seriously prejudice justice or breach confidentiality. However, the court must balance freedom of expression.
Significance:
Established limits on the use of contempt to restrain the press.
Highlighted the tension between freedom of the press and the administration of justice.
2. R v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1992)
Facts:
The newspaper published articles potentially prejudicing a forthcoming trial, raising the risk of juror bias.
Legal Issue:
Was publication contempt by prejudicing the trial?
Ruling:
The court ruled that publications creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a trial amount to contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Significance:
Reinforced the strict liability rule for publications in the "active trial" period.
Emphasized protection of fair trial rights.
3. Scott v. Scott (1913)
Facts:
A high-profile divorce case attracted media attention. The plaintiff challenged reporting restrictions.
Legal Issue:
Could courts impose temporary prohibitions on publication to prevent prejudicing a case?
Ruling:
The House of Lords affirmed the court's inherent power to control publicity to protect fairness and integrity of proceedings.
Significance:
Early recognition of courts’ powers to impose reporting restrictions.
Balances public interest in open justice with fairness.
4. Attorney-General v. Punch Ltd (1994)
Facts:
A newspaper published material that was argued to scandalize the court by alleging bias and misconduct.
Legal Issue:
Does criticism of the judiciary amount to contempt by scandalizing the court?
Ruling:
The court held that publication that seriously undermines public confidence in the judiciary may constitute contempt.
Significance:
Affirmed the offence of scandalizing the court as a form of contempt.
Maintained judicial authority and public confidence.
5. R v. Choudhury (1991)
Facts:
A defendant sent threatening letters to jurors during a trial.
Legal Issue:
Is attempting to influence jurors contempt of court?
Ruling:
The court convicted the defendant of contempt for attempting to intimidate jurors, thereby undermining the justice process.
Significance:
Highlighted contempt offences protecting jury impartiality.
Set precedent for sanctions on jury tampering.
📊 Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Year | Key Legal Issue | Outcome & Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General v. Times | 1974 | Injunctions against publication | Limits on press restrictions for contempt |
| R v. Times Newspapers Ltd | 1992 | Prejudicing fair trial by publication | Strict liability for trial prejudice |
| Scott v. Scott | 1913 | Reporting restrictions in sensitive cases | Courts’ inherent power to restrict publicity |
| Attorney-General v. Punch | 1994 | Scandalizing the court by criticism | Offence of scandalizing the court affirmed |
| R v. Choudhury | 1991 | Juror intimidation | Contempt by jury tampering |
🔑 Key Principles in Contempt of Court
Fair trial protection: Preventing prejudicial publications or actions.
Judicial respect: Prohibiting scandalizing or undermining the judiciary.
Enforcement powers: Courts have broad powers to punish contempts to maintain authority.
Balance: Courts must balance contempt powers with freedom of expression and public interest.
Procedural safeguards: Contempt proceedings often require high standards of proof.
RELATED Blog
0 comments