A judge of the High Court had committed the barrister appellant to prison for seven days for contempt in the face of the court. The barrister was granted special leave to appeal to the Board against the committal order.
Held: Allowing the appeal. The judge had, however inadvertently, failed to serve a fundamental rule of natural justice, that a person accused of an offence should be told plainly enough to give him an opportunity to put forward any expkanation or excuse that he may wish to advance: ‘In charging the appellant with contempt, Maharaj J did not make plain to him the particulars of the specific nature of the contempt with which he was charged. This must usually be done before an alleged contemnor can properly be convicted and punished . . In their Lordships’ view, justice certainly demanded that the judge should have done so in this particular case. Their Lordships are satisfied that his failure to explain that the contempt with which he intended to charge the appellant was what the judge has described in hiw written reasons as a ‘vicious attack on the integrity of the Court’ vitiates the committal for contempt.’
Lord Salmon said: ‘Their Lordships recognise how important it is not to waste judicial time. But if this can be avoided only by finding against a party without giving him a fair chance of being heard, then such a price for saving judicial time is far too high.’
Lord Salmon said: ‘No point was taken on the hearing of the petition for special leave that such an appeal does not lie to Her Majesty in Council, nor was any such point taken in the respondent’s case. The point was however raised for the first time as a preliminary objection at the hearing of this appeal. Their Lordships can deal with it quite shortly.
It was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the point would have been unarguable before 1962, since it has long been well settled that it is competent for Her Majesty in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court. Their Lordships consider that the point is equally unarguable now for they can discover nothing in the Trinidad and Tobago Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1962 or the Trinidad and Tobago (Procedure in Appeals to Privy Council) Order in Council 1962 which touches Her Majesty’s power in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court.’
Judges:
Lord Salmon
Citations:
[1977] 1 All ER 411
Citing:
See also – Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) PC 27-Feb-1978
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant barrister has been convicted of contempt. The Board had previously found the conviction improper because the basis of the complaint had not been made clear to him. The appellant now sought damages for his . .
Cited – Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago PC 1936
It is competent for Her Majesty in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court. . .
Cited – In The Matter of The Petition Of Edward Hutchinson Pollard v The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Of Hong Kong PC 16-Jun-1868
A contempt of Court being a criminal offence, no person can be punished for such unless the specific offence charged against him be distinctly stated, and an opportunity given him of answering. . .
Cited by:
See also – Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) PC 27-Feb-1978
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant barrister has been convicted of contempt. The Board had previously found the conviction improper because the basis of the complaint had not been made clear to him. The appellant now sought damages for his . .
Cited – The Attorney General for St Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov PC 20-Jul-2004
(St. Christopher and Nevis) The government of Canada requested the extradition of the respondent. The Attorney General sought special leave to appeal against the order for his discharge from custody, which had been on the grounds of the prejudice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Contempt of Court, Natural Justice
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199437
