The defendant had been convicted but refused to leave his cell to attend court to be sentenced. The judge had adjourned a hearing on contempt for seven days.
Held: The judge was under no duty to hear any allegation of contempt on the day. Previous authorities had established that urgency was material not to the jurisdiction but to whether and how it should be exercised. Where the delay was no longer than was necessary to make adequate arrangements for a summary trial, that delay was not unlawful. ‘The effect of Balogh is that a judge should not punish summarily unless it is ‘imperative for the court to act immediately’, unless ‘nothing else [would] do to protect the ends of justice’ and unless the defendant was being punished to ‘ensure that a trial in progress or about to start can be brought to a proper and dignified end’.
Judges:
Hooper LJ, Silber J, David Paget QC
Citations:
Times 16-Mar-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 556
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Balogh v St Albans Crown Court CA 1975
The defendant, a solicitors’ clerk attending a trial, grew bored, and set out to release laughing gas into the court through a vent. He had been seen earlier and was caught before he achieved his end. He appealed his committal; for contempt, saying . .
Cited – Regina v Griffin 1989
The court considered the extent of the jurisdiction to commit for contempt. Mustill LJ said: ‘We should add that certain dicta (for example, in Balogh) may be read as suggesting that the court has no jurisdiction to adopt the summary process unless . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223635