The claimant had obtained a court order requiring the Chief Constable to return certain computer equipment seized by his officers. In the absence of compliance the claimant sought an order for his committal for contempt of court.
Held: The order took effect immediately, but it did not explicitly state as it should have done, the time by which he must comply. In that circumstance no order for committal should be made. The respondent had now given an undertaking to comply with the order, but it was regrettable that proceedings had been necessary to secure this. The claimant might better have proceeded by requesting a correction of the order.
Calvert-Smith J, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, Mr Justice Wilkie
 EWHC 2293 (Admin), Times 21-Jul-2009
England and Wales
See Also – Bates and Another v Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Police and Another Admn 8-May-2009
The claimant had had computers seized by the defendant under searches despite his assertion that they contained legally privileged material. The claimant had been discredited as an expert witness in cases relating to the possession of indecent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Torts – Other, Contempt of Court
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374727