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. Â
Contempt of Court - From: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ÂRegina v Vincent D (Contempt of Court: Illegal Photography) [2004] EWCA Crim 1271
2004
CACD
Lord Woolf CJ, Aikens and Fulford JJ
Contempt of Court
The appellant was the brother of the defendant in a major drugs trial, which involved a protected witness. He took a photograph in the canteen area, and another from the public gallery facing towards the witness box, witness and bench. The quality was too low for the witness to be identified. The third photograph showed the dock, the defendant and a prison officer. The appellant denied any sinister intent; it had been done "in the spirit of fun". This was dealt with by the trial judge as criminal contempt. He appealed against a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. Held: The court had been entitled to take the view it had. Aikens J referred to the the growing and disturbing problems created by those who take illegal photographs during criminal proceedings.
Each photograph was its own contempt, and though there was no actual disruption to the trial, or evidence that any juror had been frightened, there were risks that that could have happened, and that the layout of the dock (the only secure one in Merseyside) and court could become known to the public at large.
Aikens J, set out factors in sentencing for contempt of court through taking illegal photographs with a mobile phone during a criminal trial, enumerating the risks which illegal photography could create: intimidation of juries and witnesses, even of lawyers or judges. There could be risks to police or dock officers. Such photographs could easily be passed on to others for misuse, or could come into the hands of the wrong person through the ease of publication. Relevant factors for sentencing included the potential for misuse and disruption. The potential for considerable disruption was clear. It might be that in some cases, prison would not be appropriate, such as "where a foreign tourist has inadvertently taken a photograph, perhaps in ignorance of English law". The implication is that that would still be a contempt, and "inadvertently" must mean "deliberately but not knowing of the law."
Contempt had been made out even though there was no actual disruption to the trial or further risk of prejudice, and even though it did not appear that the judge had found that the appellant had had any intention to interfere with the administration of justice, though the photographs were obviously taken deliberately. Nor had s.41 of the CJA 1925 prevented illegal photography being a contempt of court. The illegal photography was dealt with as a contempt in the face of the court, though it had not actually disrupted court proceedings. It followed that it could be dealt with on application for committal as well. The judgment acknowledged that the risks to the due administration of justice were made graver by the ease with which photographs could be taken covertly on a mobile phone and widely disseminated privately or publicly, even from the phone itself.
Criminal Justice Act 1925 41
1 Citers
Â
Great Future International Limited and Others v Sealand Housing Corporation and Others Times, 01 March 2004
19 Jan 2004
ChD
Lewison J
Contempt of Court
Committal of defendants was sought for breach of freezing orders in respect of their assets below a certain minimum. Held: There was an evidential but not legal burden on the alleged contemnor to establish that his assets exceeded the minimum set down. Beyond that the burden of proof was on the applicant.
1 Cites
Â
Nokia France Sa v Interstone Trading Ltd and others [2004] EWHC 272 (Comm)
18 Feb 2004
ComC
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Â
Aquilina v Aquilina Times, 15 April 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 504
24 Mar 2004
CA
Ward LJ, Clarke LJ
Contempt of Court
The applicant appealed a sentence of six months imprisonment for breaches of a non-molestation injunction. Held: The breaches had been non-violent, and the court had not considered whether he was prepared to purge his contempt. A balance had to be found between a coercive and a punitive approach. The breaches were silly, but did not justify the sentence imposed. 3 months substituted. Any custodial sentence imposed for contempt should be as short as possible consistent with the circumstances of the case.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited [2004] EWHC 821 (Ch)
1 Apr 2004
ChD
Mr Justice Smith
Contempt of Court
The judge had handed down a judgement relying upon undertakings given by the parties. Though there appeared a possibility that one party had breached that undertaking no further action was to be taken.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Rayne v Hm Prison Strangeways Manchester [2004] EWHC 903 (Admin)
6 Apr 2004
Admn
Insolvency, Contempt of Court, Legal Professions
[ Bailii ]
Â
Begum v Anam [2004] EWCA Civ 578
29 Apr 2004
CA
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Â
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc (t/a Sony Computer Entertainment Inc) v Ball and Others [2004] EWHC 1192 (Ch)
17 May 2004
ChD
Pumfrey J
Contempt of Court, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought an order for the defendant to be pursued for contempt of court having filed a statement of truth which was known to be false.
Civil Procedure Rules 32.14
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v. Ball and Others [2004] EWHC 1192 (Ch)
17 May 2004
ChD
Pumfrey J
Intellectual Property, Contempt of Court
Pumfrey J considered the test to be applied when a party applied for leave to commence proceedings for contempt of court against another party: "It seems to me, in the light of the judgment in Malgar v. Leach, that the discretion to permit applications of this nature to proceed must be exercised with very great caution. It can hardly be appropriate, it seems to me, to permit a general investigation of the facts surrounding a particular infringement in the context of contempt proceedings. That is why I have excluded from the permission which I have granted the greater number of the non-disclosures and misrepresentations alleged by the claimants.
It seems to me also that before this discretion is exercised, the claimant must satisfy the court that there is a strong case - and preferably an admitted case - that a particular misrepresentation is untrue." and
"the court must be astute not to allow tenuous or argumentative applications to commit to go forward."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
In the Matter of Scriven [2004] EWCA Civ 683
2 Jun 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Sedley
Contempt of Court
Mr Scriven appealed an order for his committal to prison for contempt of court in insolvency proceedings. Held: There had been mistakes in the procedures but these were not of such a kind as to be fatal to the committal. It was clear that the defendant had been given ample opportunity to avoid imprisonment, but had continued his defiance of the court. Appeal refused.
[ Bailii ]
Â
Independent Publishing Company Limited v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, The Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] 1 AC 190; [2004] 3 WLR 611; [2004] UKPC 26; [2005] 1 All ER 499
8 Jun 2004
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Constitutional, Media, Contempt of Court
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The newspapers had been accused of contempt of court having reported matters in breach of court orders, and the editors committed to prison after a summary hearing: "In deciding whether someone's section 4 (a) 'right not to be deprived [of their liberty] except by due process of law' has been violated, it is the legal system as a whole which must be looked at, not merely one part of it. The fundamental human right, as Lord Diplock said [in Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No. 2) [1979] AC 385], is to 'a legal system ... that is fair'. Where, as in Mr Maharaj's case, there was no avenue of redress (save only an appeal by special leave direct to the Privy Council) from a manifestly unfair committal to prison, ... one can understand why the legal system should be characterised as unfair. Where, however, as in the present case, Mr Ali was able to secure his release on bail within 4 days of his committal – indeed, within only one day of his appeal to the Court of Appeal – their Lordships would hold the legal system as a whole to be a fair one."
Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago 14
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Â
Clarke v Clarke [2004] EWCA Civ 1185
5 Jul 2004
CA
Family, Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Â
Raja (Representing the Estate of the Late Mohammed Sabir Raja) v Van Hoogstraten, Tombstone Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 968; Times, 27 July 2004
21 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Chadwick
Contempt of Court
The court made a freezing order and on order for disclosure ex parte. The respondent said he wished to challenge the order. The court then found him in contempt. Held: The respondent was entitled to be heard on his challenge before a penal order was made. The court was aware that other circumstances prevented the respondent appearing in person. The finding of contempt was wrongly made.
[ Bailii ]
Â
De Montford v Mckenzie [2004] EWCA Civ 1189
17 Aug 2004
CA
Family, Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Thompson v Mitchell; CACD 23-Aug-2004 - Times, 13 September 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 1271
Â
Heidleberg Graphic Equipment Ltd and Another v Hogan and Others [2004] EWHC 3090 (Ch)
6 Oct 2004
ChD
Mann J
Contempt of Court
Mann J considered the sentencing options for a contempt of court in the form of an attempt to undermine a search and seizure order. He said: "Freezing orders and search and seizure orders are orders which are not uncommon these days. Where disclosure obligations are provided in orders, they are provided for a good reason. They are provided so that orders can be policed and/or so the claimants can be put in possession of information which they need. Where search and seizure orders are made, they are made because the interests of the claimant and of justice require it. The court can and should expect these orders to be obeyed without question by those upon whom they are served, and those who do not comply with those orders can expect little mercy from the court and can expect serious sanctions to be imposed upon them if they do not. The system simply will not work if people think that they can ignore court orders and destroy evidence, or remove materials from the scene to which claimants are entitled. Those who do so can expect terms of imprisonment."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Matin v Hm Attorney General and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1621
2 Nov 2004
CA
Contempt of Court, Family
[ Bailii ]
Â
Salih v Sharif [2004] EWCA Civ 1673
10 Nov 2004
CA
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Â
HM Attorney General v Express Newspapers [2004] EWHC 2859 (Admin)
25 Nov 2004
Admn
Contempt of Court
The claimant sought an order for the committal of the respondent for contempt in having breached an order to restrict their naming of a footballer arrested on allegations of serious sexual assaults. The claim had not gone forward. Held: " . . when, uniquely, the respondents published in a national newspaper, with a readership of millions, these items identifying these possible defendants, that created a real, substantial, more than remote practical risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded or prejudiced. At its lowest, the publication rendered the complainant highly vulnerable to cross-examination on the basis that her identification, whether as to who was present and who did what (and it matters not which), was tainted by what she had read" Contempt was proved.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
In re S (a Child) (Contact dispute: Committal) Times, 09 December 2004
1 Dec 2004
CA
Thorpe, Arden, Neuberger LJJ
Children, Contempt of Court
The mother of a child had persistently refused to comply with an order to give contact with her child to the father. She had been committed for contempt, and appealed. Held: The circumstances left the court with no other choice than to impose the suspended committal order. The order gave the mother another opportunity to demonstrate her intention to comply with the order.
Â
Birmingham City Council and Another v Yardley [2004] EWCA Civ 1756
9 Dec 2004
CA
Licensing, Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Â
Damon Head v Carol Orrow [2004] EWCA Civ 1691; [2005] 2 FLR 329
16 Dec 2004
CA
Mr Justice Wall The Hon. Mr Justice Dyson The Right Honourable Lord Justice May
Contempt of Court, Family
A court asked to sentence for contempt of court is not sentencing for the criminal equivalent of what the contemnor has done, and "Great care must be taken, if there are concurrent criminal or civil proceedings, to ensure that sentences in two or more courts do not punish twice for the same thing."
Family Law Act 1996 42
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â