The formalities of committal proceedings are to be strictly observed, but a breach of the formalities may be overlooked if it does not affect the justice of the case.
Lord Woolf MR considered the discretion given to a court to commit for contempt: ‘Like any other discretion, the discretion provided by the statutory provisions, must be exercised in a way which in all the circumstances best reflects the requirements of justice. In determining this the court must not only take into account the interests of the contemnor but also the interests of the other parties and the interests of upholding the reputation of civil justice in general. Today it is no longer appropriate to regard an order for committal as being no more than a form of execution available to another party against and alleged contemnor. The court itself has a very substantial interest in seeing that its orders are upheld. If committal orders are to be set aside on purely technical grounds which have nothing to do with the justice of the case, then this has the effect of undermining the system of justice and the credibility of the court orders. While the procedural requirements in relation to applications to commit and committal orders are there to be obeyed and to protect the contemnor, if there is non-compliance with the requirements which does not prejudice the contemnor, to set aside the order purely on the grounds of technicality is contrary to the interests of justice. As long as the order made by the judge was a valid order, the approach of this court will be to uphold the order in the absence of any prejudice or injustice to the contemnor as a consequence of doing so.’
rod Woolf MR gave guidance: ‘The guidance which can be provided for future cases is as follows.
(1) As committal orders involve the liberty of the subject it is particularly important that the relevant rules are duly complied with. It remains the responsibility of the judge when signing the committal order to ensure that it is properly drawn and that it adequately particularises the breaches which have been proved and for which the sentence has been imposed.
(2) As long as the contemnor had a fair trial and the order has been made on valid grounds the existence of a defect either in the application to commit or in the committal order served will not result in the order being set aside except in so far as the interests of justice require this to be done.
(3) Interests of justice will not require an order to be set aside where there is no prejudice caused as a result of errors in the application to commit or in the order to commit. When necessary the order can be amended.
(4) When considering whether to set aside the order, the court should have regard to the interests of any other party and the need to uphold the reputation of the justice system.
(5) If there has been a procedural irregularity or some other defect in the conduct of the proceedings which has occasioned injustice, the court will consider exercising its power to order a new trial unless there are circumstances which indicate that it would not be just to do so.’
Judges:
Lord Woolf MR, Auld LJ, Ward LJ
Citations:
[1996] EWCA Civ 1271, [1997] 1 WLR 314, [1997] 1 FLR 649
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Dictum Approved – M v P (Contempt of Court: Committal Order) CA 1992
Orse Butler v Butler
Failure to observe the proper procedures for service is not necessarily fatal to the lawfulness of a committal order. In each of the two appeals against committal orders comma the contemnor complained of non-compliance . .
Cited by:
Applied – ABC and Others v CDE and Others QBD 3-Nov-2009
The first claimant sought committal of the first defendant for contempt of court, alleging breach of a freezing order, saying that the defendant had created a sham debt and repaid it.
Held: There had been no genuine loan agreement, and the . .
Cited – In re S-C (Children) v H-C CA 28-Jan-2010
The appellant appealed against an order finding her in contempt of court for breach of a court order. The finding had been made in the absence of the parties. She had reported to the police a distorted version of a medical report in the children . .
Cited – Re Yaxley-Lennon (Aka Tommy Robinson) CACD 1-Aug-2018
Need for clarity in Contempt Allegation
The defendant appealed from his convictions for contempt of court, being said to have broadcast details of criminal prosecutions despite orders to the contrary. He argued that any failure of procedure was fatal to the prosecutions.
Held: As to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.141139
