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.
Judges:
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Arden
Citations:
Times 10-Apr-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 477, [2002] BPIR 881, [2002] 1 WLR 1910
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Croissant v Germany ECHR 25-Sep-1992
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c
‘[I]t is for the courts to decide whether the interests of justice require that the accused be defended by counsel appointed by them. When . .
Cited by:
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Aid, Contempt of Court, Human Rights
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.168534
