Category: Contempt of Court

Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2001

A web site operator who declined responsibility for the moderation of a chat room on the site, but did take steps to remove a poster making defamatory remarks, could not rely upon the Act to resist disclosure of the identity of the author. The Act was intended to protect those who themselves accepted responsibility. In any event the interests of justice would have required the name to be revealed, overriding any obligations under the Data Protection Act.
Owen J
Times 15-Mar-2001, Gazette 11-May-2001, [2001] EWHC 706 (QB), [2001] EMLR 29
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.89928

X v Y: 1987

Complaint was made that defendant newspapers were to publish confidential medical records of doctors suffering Aids. An injunction was sought to prevent use of records given to a journalist by a hospital employee. The records related to doctors in general practice. The newspaper said it intended to do so in a way which would not allow identification of the doctors.
Held: The injunction was granted. The fact of the confidence in the records meant that the claimant did not have to establish any further prospective damage. Detriment had been established immediately the records were handed over, since this would discourage other patients approaching AIDS clinics. One of the doctors had already been harassed by the newspaper. Once the information had been acquired in breach of contract, it was for the defendants to show good reason for its publication. They had not discharged that burden. Allowing the paper to pick and choose what it published would make a mockery of the section, and the story published during the continuation of the proceedings and clearly been in contempt of court. The court emphasised the importance of confidentiality for medical health records.
Rose J said: ‘In the long run, preservation of confidentiality is the only way of securing public health; otherwise doctors will be discredited as a source of education, for future individual patients will not come forward if doctors are going to squeal on them. Consequently, confidentiality is vital to secure public as well as private health, for unless those infected come forward they cannot be counselled and self-treatment does not provide the best care’
Rose J
[1988] 2 All ER 648, (1987) 13 IPR 202
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
Cited – W v Egdell 1989
The psychiatrist had been engaged by W’s solicitors to examine him and prepare a report to go to the Tribunal hearing an application for the transfer or conditional discharge of W from a secure unit. His report was damning. W withdrew the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.238532

Hammerton v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Mar 2012

Statement of Facts – Contempt of Court – failure to provide representation on committal
6287/10, [2012] ECHR 562
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Hammerton v Hammerton CA 23-Mar-2007
The husband appealed against his committal for contempt of a court order in family proceedings. The court had heard the wife’s application for his committal at the same time as his application for contact with the children.
Held: The appeal . .
See Also – Hammerton v Hammerton CA 12-Apr-2007
Appeal against sentence of two months imprisonment for contempt of court. The court emphasised the need to ensure a fair process in such cases. The court was critical of the judge who sentenced a contemnor without hearing mitigation and without . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.452579

Scarth (The Living Man) v Governor of HM Prison Armley and Another: Admn 26 Aug 2011

The prisoner sought a writ of habeas corpus having been imprisoned for six months for contempt of court after being found to be recording proceedings at Bradford Crown Court from the public gallery.
Held: The proceedings had been summary and though it may have been better had the defendant had legal representation, that was not conclusive. There was no basis for the assertion that the judge had been biased, and ‘A contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. Unauthorised recording of court proceedings has long been held to be capable of constituting a contempt. The rights conferred by Article 10 are not unrestricted. There is no arguable basis that the Claimant’s rights under Article 10 have been infringed.’ There was no basis for asserting that the imprisonment was unlawful. An application to purge the contempt should be made to the judge who had made the order. An appeal had been filed, and it was appropriate that that should expedited.
Wyn Williams J
[2011] EWHC 2269 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales

Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.443312

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and News Group Newspapers Ltd: Admn 19 Jul 2011

The court considered the sentence for contempt of court by the defendant newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) in their online publication of a photograph which had not been cropped in the way required to avoid the prejudice complained of.
Held: Though in one case the photograph had been removed after only a few hours, each defendant was ordered to pay a fine of pounds 15,000 and the A-G’s costs summarily assessed.
Moses LJ, Owen J
[2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General v ITV Central Ltd Admn 15-Jul-2008
The Attorney General sought a finding of contempt against the defendant television company in respect of its reporting of a criminal trial. The defendant in the trial faced a charge of murder. The company broacast to the region on the morning of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.441965

B v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Jul 2011

The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment of four months imposed for his refusal to reveal his true identity. He was in custody suspected of terrorist activities. The identity he had given had been shown to be false, and the Algerian government refused to accept him on being deported. He had a long history of mental illness.
Held: (Ehtherton LJ dissenting) The appeal was dismissed. There was no possibility of an infringement either of his article 3 or article 8 rights. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) had erred in rejecting the evidence of two psychiatrists that B would refuse to take his medication and that, in consequence, the onset of a psychotic state was likely. Nevertheless, the appeal should be dismissed. They rejected arguments on Articles 3 and 8, finding that there would be no breach of article 3 as arrangements would be in place for B’s treatment in hospital if he suffered a relapse. The sentence imposed was not excessive.
Etherton LJ dissenting, said that the decision was fatally flawed in having failed to deal accurately with the expert medical evidence. The would have remitted the case SIAC.
Laws, Longmore, Etherton LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 828
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 30-Jan-2013
B had been under arrest on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, but had not revealed his identity, in contempt of court orders to do so, so that the respondent was unable to secure a destiny for his deportation. He had been sentenced to . .
See Also – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.442014

B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 30 Jan 2013

B had been under arrest on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, but had not revealed his identity, in contempt of court orders to do so, so that the respondent was unable to secure a destiny for his deportation. He had been sentenced to four months imprisonment for this contempt by the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal (SIAC). B appealed saying that the sentence infringed his article 3 and 8 rights, since imprisonment would lead to a revival of a medical condition, paranoid psychosis through refusing medication.
Held: The appeal failed. The sentence was correct, even if there had been errors in how it had been reached, an appeal court could in an appropriate case redetermine the sentence. In this case there was no need for an new investigation.
Committal in such a case was appropriate where it was used to ensure compliance. It was not relevant that the subject was already subject to stringent restrictions on his freedom. The approach of the court of appeal had been punishment rather than an attempt to secure compliance. Similarly, SIAC had imposed the sentence out of consideration of the seriousness of the offence. Given that error, it was not wrong for the Court of Appeal to have reconsidered the sentence rather than to have remitted the case.
In general it would be necessary to remit such a case only where a fresh investigation of the facts was required.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 4, [2013] 1 WLR 435, [2013] WLR(D) 29, UKSC 2011/0186
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – B v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment of four months imposed for his refusal to reveal his true identity. He was in custody suspected of terrorist activities. The identity he had given had been shown to be false, and the Algerian . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and others ChD 2-Nov-2010
The court consider its sentence on one of the defendants found to be in contempt of court.
Held: Mr Kythreotis was sentenced on the basis that the contempt had been purged, without making any finding as to whether there had been full and . .

Cited by:
See Also – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.470663

Attorney General v Independent Television News and Others: CA 1995

Leggatt LJ said that counsel for the Attorney General was correct when he submitted that: ‘It does not follow that because a risk had been created by the broadcast, further publication in newspapers would not create fresh and added risk of prejudice. In other words, if several newspapers publish prejudicial material, they cannot escape from liability by contending that the damage has already been done, because each affords its own additional risk of prejudice, or, as it might be said, each exacerbates and increases the risk.’
Leggatt LJ
[1995] 2 All ER 370
Contempt of Court Act 1981
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Attorney General v Independent Television News and Others QBD 12-May-1994
A complaint of contempt of court was defeated by a deal in the trial which had worked to reduce any risk of prejudice. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General v Random House Group Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
The Attorney-General sought to restrain the publication of a book which she said would prejudice the defendants in a forthcoming criminal trial. The publisher said that a restraint would be a disproportionate interference in its Article 10 rights. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.425621

Parker and Another (T/A NBC Services) v Rasalingham (T/A Micro Tec) and Others: ChD 25 Jul 2000

A party was in breach of an injunction against its use of certain materials within a course it offered. It claimed in defence and mitigation that before doing so, it had taken legal advice that the acts would not be so in breach. The court did not accept that as mitigation. The advice was not recorded at any point and had been given without having full knowledge of the circumstances. Where the order had been negotiated and was by consent. An award of damages was available in respect of infringements of such an order.
References: Times 25-Jul-2000, Gazette 03-Aug-2000
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.84575

Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others: ChD 15 Jan 2008

Whether a prisoner serving a sentence for contempt of court is subject to the same rules as to early release etc as other prisoners.
Held: ‘paragraph 5.2 of PSO 6300 is unlawful in so far as it purports to require, or is interpreted by the Prison Service as requiring, the permission of the sentencing judge to be obtained before a contempt prisoner may be granted temporary release. The permission which has to be obtained is that of the Secretary of State or his representative acting in accordance with Rule 9. ‘
References: [2008] EWHC 151 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Henderson J
Statutes: Contempt of Court Act 1981
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.264105