Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Contempt of Court - From: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 435
7 May 1980
CA
Lord Denning MR, Templeman LJ
Media, Contempt of Court, Litigation Practice
Lord Denning MR said that the Norwich Pharmacal case opened "a new chapter in our law" and "Mr Irvine suggested this was limited to cases where the injured person desired to sue the wrongdoer. I see no reason why it should be so limited. The same procedure should be available when he desires to obtain redress against the wrongdoer - or to protect himself against further wrongdoing."
Templeman LJ: "In my judgment the principle of the Norwich Pharmacal case applies whether or not the victim intends to pursue action in the courts against the wrongdoer provided that the existence of a cause of action is established and the victim cannot otherwise obtain justice. The remedy of discovery is intended in the final analysis to enable justice to be done. Justice can be achieved against an erring employee in a variety of ways and a plaintiff may obtain an order for discovery provided he shows that he is genuinely seeking lawful redress of a wrong and cannot otherwise obtain redress. In the present case BSC state that they will not finally determine whether to take legal proceedings or whether to dismiss the employee or whether to obtain redress in some other lawful manner until they have considered the identity, status and excuses of the employee. The disclosure of the identity of the disloyal employee will by itself protect BSC and their innocent employees now and for the future and is essential if B.S.C. are to redress the wrong."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Attorney General v British Broadcasting Council; HL 1981 - [1981] AC 303; [1980] 3 All ER 161; [1980] 3 WLR 109

 
 The "Messiniaki Tolmi"; 1981 - [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 595
 
Raymond v Honey [1982] AC 1; [1981] UKHL 8
4 Mar 1981
HL
Lord Wilberforce, Steyn LJ
Prisons, Human Rights, Contempt of Court
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner's letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court. Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject to any legislation altering the situation, a prisoner retains all his rights that are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication by the fact of his imprisonment: "under English law, a convicted prisoner, in spite of his imprisonment, retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication . . In my opinion, there is nothing in the Prison Act 1952 that confers power to make regulations which would deny, or interfere with, the right of the respondent, as a prisoner, to have unimpeded access to a court. Section 47, which has already been quoted, is a section concerned with the regulation and management of prisons and, in my opinion, is quite insufficient to authorise hindrance or interference with so basic a right. The regulations themselves must be interpreted accordingly, otherwise they would be ultra vires. So interpreted, I am unable to conclude that either rule 34(8) - which is expressed in very general terms - or rule 37A(4), whether taken by themselves or in conjunction with Standing Orders, is in any way sufficiently clear to justify the hindrance which took place. The standing orders, if they have any legislative force at all, cannot confer any greater powers than the regulations, which, as stated, must themselves be construed in accordance with the statutory power to make them."
Steyn L said: "By way of summary, we accept that section 47(1) of the Act of 1952 by necessary implication authorises some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. The authorised intrusion must, however, be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence is in truth bona fide legal correspondence." but "rule 33(3) of the Rules of 1964 is extravagantly wide. The very technique of dealing in one provision with ordinary correspondence and legal correspondence is flawed. In our view the Secretary of State strayed beyond the proper limits of section 47(1) when he made rule 33(3)."
Prisons Act 1952 47(1) - Prison Rules 1964 33(3)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Horsham Justices ex parte Farquharson [1982] 1 QB 762
1982
CA
Lord Denning MR, Shaw and Ackner LJJ
Contempt of Court, Media
Premature publication in contravention of a postponement order under section 4(2) of which the publisher was aware is a contempt of court notwithstanding section 6(b). Shaw LJ: “The words ‘pending or imminent’ have been held to include the possible (not necessarily the inevitable) outcome of legal process”. Lord Denning (dissenting): "[Counsel] suggested that once an order is made by a court under section 4(2), and a newspaper publishes in breach of it, then the newspaper is automatically guilty of a contempt of court without any inquiry as to whether the order was rightly made or not. I cannot accept this suggestion for one moment. It would mean that every court in the land would be given a new power, by its own order, to postpone indefinitely publication in the newspapers of the whole or any part of the proceedings before it, or in another court. Such an order could be made, and would be made, against the newspaper without their having any notice of it or any opportunity of being heard on it. They have no right of appeal against it. It could be done on the application of one party, and the acquiescence of the other, without the court itself giving much, if any, thought to the public interest. It would be nothing more nor less than a power, by consent of the parties, to muzzle the press. ... Parliament has, I think, guarded against this danger. It has done so by [section 6(b)]." and "It has long been settled that the courts have power to make an order postponing publication (but not prohibiting it) if the postponement is necessary for the furtherance of justice in proceedings which are pending or imminent. It was so held in [Clement] which was approved by the House of Lords in Scott v Scott ..."
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Home Office v Hariette Harman; HL 11-Feb-1982 - [1983] 1 AC 280; [1982] 2 WLR 338; [1982] 1 All ER 532; (1982) 126 SJ 136
 
Lutchmeeparsad Badry v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1982] UKPC 1; [1983] 2 AC 297; (Appeals Nos 4, 5 and 6 of 1981)
15 Nov 1982
PC
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone), Lord Scarman, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman
Constitutional, Commonwealth, Contempt of Court
(Mauritius) The applicant appealed three counts of contempt of court, arising from speeches made by him in the political debate. He had been a minister, but was subject to investigation for fraud. To found a appeal he had to show some blatant or significant disregard or breach of legal process, or injustice. The board do not sit as a criminal appeal court. Held: It was not possible to take any interpretation of some of the words used which did not amount to an attack on the integrity of the judicial system, but other charges were not such an attack.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]

 
 Enfield London Borough Council v Mahoney; CA 1983 - [1983] 1 WLR 749; [1983] 2 All ER 901

 
 Attorney-General v English; HL 1983 - [1983] 1 AC 116
 
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others Times, 12 February 1983
12 Feb 1983
CA
Lord Lane CJ, Ackner LJ, Oliver LJ
Media, Contempt of Court
The Attorney General brought contempt proceedings against five newspapers who had wriitten about two entries made to Buckingham Palace by Michael Fagan. Amongst the newspapers found guilty of contempt was The Sunday Times. Held: The newspapers were guilty because the publications created a risk that the jury might be prejudiced.
Oliver LJ said: "The course of justice is not just concerned with the outcome of proceedings. It is concerned with the whole process of the law, including the freedom of a person accused of a crime to elect, so far as the law permits him to do so, the mode of trial which he prefers and to conduct his defence in the way which seems best to him and to his advisers. Any extraneous factor or external pressure which impedes or restricts that election or that conduct, or which impels a person accused to adopt a course in the conduct of his own defence which he does not wish to adopt, deprives him to an extent of the freedom of choice which the law confers upon him and is, in my judgment, not only a prejudice but a serious prejudice." He found the publication objectionable on the basis that The Sunday Times seemed to be "gunning" for Fagan whose solicitor said "because it was the article which prompted him to decide that Fagan should be tried on indictment on the assault charge and that of driving away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. It was the direct and immediate effect of the article which determined Fagan's option for summary trial and kept the assault charge hanging over him until October."
1 Citers


 
Clarke v Chadburn [1985] 1 WLR 78
1984

Sir Robert Megarry VC
Contempt of Court
Megarry VC said: "I should add this. Mr Burton made it explicit that he was not seeking to have any penalty imposed on any of the five defendants in respect of disobedience to any of the orders made on 10 July, even though he was founding the present application upon a plain breach of one of those orders. Not surprisingly, there has been some comment upon the inactivity of the courts in cases where an order of the court is being openly flouted and contemned. There are some who ask why the courts stand by and do nothing.
It is perhaps not generally realised that where the party who has obtained an order from the court is content that it should not be performed, the court, generally speaking, has no interest in interfering so as to enforce what the litigant does not want enforced. The order is made so as to assist the litigant in obtaining his rights, and he may consult his own interests in deciding whether or not to enforce it. If he decides not to, there may in some cases be a public element involved, and the Attorney General will judge whether the public interest requires him to intervene in order to enforce the order. If neither the litigant nor the Attorney General seeks to enforce the order, the court will act of its own volition in punishing the contempt only in exceptional cases of clear contempts which cannot wait to be dealt with, cases in which, in the words of Lord Denning MR, 'It is urgent and imperative to act immediately' . . I should add that I speak only of disobedience to orders, and not, for example, of contempts committed in the face of the court.
Whether this is a satisfactory state of the law is a matter of debate. In cases where (as in this case) there are political overtones, if not more, there are obvious difficulties in requiring it to be the Attorney General who determines whether the public interest requires him to intervene; for however strictly unpolitical a mind he brings to the decision, the opportunities for misrepresentation are almost unlimited. There seems to be a clear case for considering whether there should be some relaxation by the courts of their present restraint on themselves in enforcing their orders in cases where these are being openly flouted and the administration of justice is being brought into disrespect. For the courts to say, as they often say, that, 'Orders of the court must be obeyed', becomes idle if there are daily instances of open and notorious disobedience remaining unpunished. If the courts become more ready to enforce orders of their own motion, no doubt consideration should be given to the machinery by which this might be done. But I have to apply the law as it stands."
1 Citers



 
 Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Tisdall Case); HL 1984 - [1985] AC 339; [1984] 3 All ER 601; [1984] 3 WLR 986
 
Harman v United Kingdom [1984] ECHR 24; (1985) 7 EHRR CD146; 10038/82
11 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights, Contempt of Court
ECHR Article 7 of the Convention: Allegedly unforeseeable conviction for the contempt of court (Complaint declared admissible).
Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention : Official documents produced in the course of discovery proceedings: solicitor found guilty of contempt of court notwithstanding that the documents had been read out in open court. Question of violation of right to impart information (Complaint declared admissible).
European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v West Yorkshire Coroner ex parte Smith (No 2) [1985] 1 All ER 100; Times, 03 October 1984
3 Oct 1984
QBD

Coroners, Contempt of Court
The applicant was involved in a coroner's hearing regarding the death of his daughter. During the hearing, he accused one witness of having murdered her. The accusation was reported. He was fined £50.00 for contempt of court. He sought judicial review saying that a coroner's court, not being a court of record, had no power of punishment for contempt. Held: The court was an inferior court but did have the power to punish a contempt in the face of the court. Such a power was necessary to keep order in a court.
Coroners Act 1887

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.