swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Contempt of Court - From: 1991 To: 1991
This page lists 6 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Â
 Pickering v Liverpool Post; HL 1991 - [1991] 2 AC 425
Â
Bhimji v Chatwani [1991] 1 All ER 705
1991
Contempt of Court
1 Citers
Â
 Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd; HL 1991 - [1992] 1 AC 191; [1991] CLY 2809; [1991] 2 WLR 994
Â
Pickering v Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Newspapers plc [1991] 2 AC 370; [1991] 2 WLR 513; [1990] 1 All ER 335
1991
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Donaldson
Damages, Contempt of Court
Damages were awarded for a breach of statutory duty where the claimant had suffered loss or damage by reason of the breach. The publication at issue went beyond reporting and "it reached deeply into the substance of the matter which the court had closed its doors to consider". A mental health review tribunal is a court to which the law of contempt applies. As to section 19: "this definition must be intended to reflect the common law concept of what is a "court" for the purposes of the common law jurisdiction of the courts in relation to contempt of court".
Lord Donaldson gave two reasons why injunctions to restrain publication are rarely given: "Where the contempt would consist of impeding or prejudicing the course of justice, it will rarely be appropriate for two reasons . . The second is that it is the wise and settled practice of the courts not to grant injunctions restraining the commission of a criminal act (and contempt of court is a criminal or quasi-criminal act) unless the penalties available under the criminal law have proved to be inadequate to deter the commission of the offences. Unlawful street trading and breaches of the provisions of the Shops Acts are well-known examples."
Contempt of Court Act 1981 19 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 12
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Smith v Smith Gazette, 04 March 1992; [1991] 2 FLR 55
1991
CA
Balcombe LJ
Contempt of Court
A husband committed two breaches of a non-molestation order; breaking the terms of a suspended sentence of committal. The breaches were extremely serious: the first was setting fire to his wife's house and the second was assaulting her so severely that she required treatment at hospital. At the time of the hearing of the application for committal, and indeed also for activation of the suspended sentence, criminal proceedings were pending in relation to the two breaches. Held: The court reduced from 12 months to six months the judge's sentence for the two breaches and left untouched his activation of the suspended sentence. Civil contempt procedures are to be followed strictly in order to avoid invalidating any committal.
Balcombe LJ said: "On the question of sentence it is important that when the court is dealing with a case of contempt of court – that is, disobeying the order of the court – and the acts which it is alleged constitute that contempt are not merely potentially criminal acts but are, as in this case, already the subject of pending criminal proceedings, the court should not punish for the crime rather than for the contempt.
I agree with my Lord that the length of the sentence that the judge imposed in this case does suggest . . that he had in mind the criminal aspect rather than the disobedience of the orders of the court, however serious that was, because it was the contempt that he was dealing with."
1 Citers
Â
Attorney-General v Sport Newspapers Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 1194
24 May 1991
QBD
Contempt of Court
The newspaper was accused of disclosing details of the previous convictions of an absconded suspect in a murder investigation, despite a prior warning from the police that any such publication would be likely to prejudice future criminal proceedings. The Attorney General applied for the publisher to be fined and the editor to be committed to prison for contempt of court. Held: The application was dismissed. The publishers and editor of the article could only be liable for contempt under the common law. A common law contempt was committed if there was publication of an article which caused a real risk of prejudice to the due administration of justice and it had been published with the specific intent to cause such a risk to the administration of justice. In this case, it had not been shown that the editor had had that specific intention when he caused the article to be published. As a consequence, neither the publishers nor the editor was guilty of common law contempt of court.
1 Citers
Â
