Appeal against a decision that the first defendant in a chancery action was guilty of two contempts of court by reason of untruthful statements in his affidavit. He complained of procedural irregularities affecting the fairness.
Held: ‘the judge’s decision cannot stand for three reasons:
i) Mr Thorogood was not informed at any time before judgment of the two alleged contempts which the judge found proved.
ii) Mr Thorogood was not informed of his right not to give evidence. Being unrepresented he would not know of that right. The litigation was so managed that Mr Thorogood had no choice but to give evidence.
iii) Mr Thorogood was not informed of his entitlement to legal aid. As a result he was unrepresented when facing the equivalent of a criminal charge.’
Jackson LJ said: ‘A committal application has the character of criminal proceedings. The alleged contemnor is therefore entitled to legal aid, so that he can be properly represented: see Kings Lynn v West Norfolk Council v Bunning (Legal Aid Agency, interested party) [2013] EWHC 3390 (QB); [2014] 2 All ER 1095
Unfortunately no-one told Mr Thorogood of his right to legal aid during the first instance proceedings. Mr Thorogood subsequently learnt of his entitlement, with the result that he now has legal aid and is represented in this court.
Mr Milford accepts that the hearing below proceeded without anyone telling Mr Thorogood of his right to legal aid in relation to the contempt application. Mr Milford also accepts that Mr Thorogood should have been told of his entitlement and then given an opportunity to instruct lawyers of his choice. Therefore there has been a breach of common law principles of fairness and ECHR article 6.3 (c) .
50 I therefore uphold the third ground of appeal.’
Jackson, Lewison, Treacy LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1511
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics CA 1971
The court was asked whether a defendant should be cross-examined on an affidavit sworn by him on an application by the plaintiff to commit him for contempt.
Held: The cross-examination was likely to cover issues in the action and on that basis . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning QBD 7-Nov-2013
Application for order finding the defendant and others to be in contempt of court in breaching an order as to the use of land for residential purposes.
Held: A committal application has the character of criminal proceedings. The alleged . .
Cited by:
Cited – Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court, Natural Justice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.539132