The respondent had, it was alleged, had breached worldwide asset freezing orders, and was liable to be committed to prison. Legal Aid was refused by the Legal Services Commission. After several adjournments, the other party offered to pay for solicitor and counsel of his choice. He refused.
Held: An application could not proceed without proper opportunity for the contemnor to obtain representation of his choice. Contempt proceedings are criminal proceedings for the purposes of Human Rights law. One more opportunity should be given for him to obtain legal aid, and the court would then look again at alternatives.
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Arden
Times 10-Apr-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002,  EWCA Civ 477,  BPIR 881,  1 WLR 1910
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited – Croissant v Germany ECHR 25-Sep-1992
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c . .
Cited – BNP Paribas v A Mezzotero EAT 30-Mar-2004
EAT Appeal from ET’s decision, at directions hearing, permitting evidence to be adduced, at the forthcoming hearing of a direct sex discrimination and victimisation complaint, of the Applicant’s allegation that, . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 January 2021; Ref: scu.168534