Tag: Contempt of Court

Central Bedfordshire Council v Markwick and Another: FD 12 Oct 2016

Application for the committal of the respondents for contempt of court, having made public matters relating to ourt proceedings involving their grandchildren.
Held: There was insufficient proof, against a straight denial, that the respondents had themselves done the acts complained of, and the complaint failed.

Holman J
[2016] EWHC 2540 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570273

Ewing v Crown Court Sitting at Cardiff and Newport and Others: Admn 8 Feb 2016

The court granted judicial review of a decision to prevent the applicant taking notes from the public gallery of the court. The general rule of openness must apply, and though particular exceptional circumstances might allow the making of such an order, no such circumstances applied in this case

Burnett LJ, Sweeney J
[2016] EWHC 183 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 62
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Leave – Kirk, Regina (on The Application of) v Cardiff Crown Court and Others Admn 21-Jan-2015
Leave to bring judicial review was granted of a decision by a judge to ban a member of the public taking notes of open court proceedings in contravention of a direct order from the judge. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court, Administrative

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559673

Regina v Horsham Justices ex parte Farquharson: CA 1982

The Court was asked whether the justices had had power under section 4(2) to impose reporting restrictions on committal proceedings pending the trial to which they related..
Held: They had. A 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). The section creates a new head of contempt, separate and distinct from the strict liability rule.
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 . .’
Ackner LJ gave his view of the object of section 4(2): ‘First of all, the power is a power to postpone, not to prohibit totally, publication. Secondly, the power may be exercised in relation to only a part of the proceedings. Thirdly, that in order for the jurisdiction to be exercised the court must be satisfied that an order is necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. The obvious case for the postponement of a report of proceedings is where the substantive trial or retrial has yet to take place, or where a fair and accurate report of one trial might still prejudice another trial still to be heard. The prejudice to the administration of justice which is envisaged is the reduction in the power of the court of doing that which is the end for which it exists – namely, to administer justice duly, impartially, and with reference solely to the facts judicially brought before it: per Wills J. in Rex v. Parke [1903] 2.K.B. 432, 438, 444. What the court is generally concerned with is the position of a juryman who, unlike the judge, has neither the training nor the experience to assist him in putting out of his mind matter which are not evidence in the case.’

Lord Denning MR, Shaw and Ackner LJJ
[1982] 1 QB 762
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(1) 4(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Poulson and Pottinger CACD 1974
The trial judge said that he did not see how the press could report the evidence in the case without running the risk of being in contempt of other criminal proceedings which had already begun against Poulson and other defendants in respect of . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Regina CACD 30-Jul-2007
The newspaper and other media companies appealed from an order restricting the reporting of parts of the evidence given in a trial for an offence under the 1989 Act. The objected that the order did not serve, as required, to protect any proceedings, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Media

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.198078

Re M (A Minor) Contempt of Court: Committal of Court’s Own Motion): 1999

The court emphasised the need for time for reflection before making an order for committal for contempt.

[1999] Fam 263
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.250484

Enfield London Borough Council v Mahoney: CA 1983

The contemnor had refused to comply with a court order requiring him to return an ancient cross, the Glastonbury Cross. He now sought his release from prison saying his contempt was purged, the Cross having been returned.
Held: The reasons for a committal to custody for a civil contempt were twofold, first to punish the contemnor for disobedience of an order of the court and second to attempt to coerce him to comply with the order. On application for early discharge, the first question for the court should be whether the contemnor has been punished enough for the contempt. If not, then he would probably fail to secure discharge. But if so, the only remaining justification for continuing to keep him in custody was the possibly coercive effect of continuing to do so.

May LJ
[1983] 1 WLR 749, [1983] 2 All ER 901
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Symes v Phillips and others CA 19-May-2005
The applicant was in contempt of court. He successfully appealed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with the sentence being reduced to one year. Legally aided, he sought his costs from the claimant. The claimant replied that their part was only . .
Cited – CJ v Flintshire Borough Council CA 15-Apr-2010
The applicant appealed against a refusal to allow his early release from prison having been sentenced to 21 months for contempts of court.
Held: The appeal failed. The court set out eight questions which might be asked before allowing such a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.226062

Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd: CA 5 Feb 1988

The agent required the contractual counterparty to pay a bribe of pounds 70,000 to an offshore account.
Held: The bribe was held to be recoverable by the principal whether the principal rescinded or affirmed the contract because it was a secret profit. ‘The remedy is not confined to cases where the agent has taken a bribe or secret commission in the strictest sense. It is available whenever, without his principal’s knowledge and consent, the agent has put himself in a position where his interest and duty may conflict. A principal is entitled to the disinterested advice of his agent free from the potentially corrupting influence of an interest of his own. Any such private interest, whether actual or contemplated, which is not known and consented to by his principal, disqualifies him.’
Millet LJ: ‘It is well established that a principal who discovers that his agent in a transaction has obtained or arranged to obtain a bribe or secret commission from the other party to the transaction is entitled, in addition to other remedies which may be open to him to rescind the transaction ab initio or, if it is too late to rescind, to bring it to an end for the future.’
An application was made to strike out the action in the middle of the substantive hearing on the ground that the responsible director of the plaintiffs had ‘deliberately suppressed [a crucial document] and, for a time, successfully concealed its existence from the Court.’
Held: The Court’s processes had not been defeated and the proceedings should be allowed to proceed.
Millet LJ said: ‘That is a very serious allegation indeed if true it would deserve the serious consequences for which the defendants ask, but it must be clearly proved . . it does not have to be proved in accordance with the criminal standard of proof. Deliberate disobedience of a peremptory order for discovery is no doubt a contempt and, if proved in accordance with the criminal standard of proof, may, in theory at least, be visited with a fine or imprisonment. But to debar the offender from all further part in the proceedings and to give judgment against him accordingly is not an appropriate response by the Court to contempt. It may, however, be an appropriate response to a failure to comply with the rules relating to discovery, even in the absence of a specific order of the Court, and so in the absence of any contempt, not because that conduct is deserving of punishment but because the failure has rendered it impossible to conduct a fair trial and would make any judgement in favour of the offender unsafe. In my view a litigant is not to be deprived of his right to proper trial as a penalty for his contempt or his defiance of the Court, but only if his conduct has amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court which would render any further proceedings unsatisfactory and prevent the Court from doing justice. Before the Court takes that serious step it needs to satisfied that there is a real risk of this happening.’ and ‘The deliberate and successful suppression of a material document is a serious abuse of the process of the Court and may well merit the exclusion of the offender from all other participation in the trial. The reason is that it makes the fair trial of the action impossible to achieve and any judgment in favour of the offender unsafe. But if the threat of such exclusion produces the missing document, then the object of order 24 rule 16 is achieved. ‘

Millet LJ
Times 05-Mar-1988, [1988] 1 WLR 1256
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Husband’s of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd 1975
The object of Order 24 Rule 16 is not to punish the offender for his conduct, but to secure compliance with the Rules of Court and orders of court relating to discovery, and the fair trial of the action in accordance with the due process of the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD 2-Nov-1999
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
Cited – Landauer Ltd v Comins and Co (a firm) CA 14-May-1991
The first instance Judge had struck out a claim under the provisions of order 24 rule 16(1) in circumstances where a number of relevant documents did not appear on the plaintiffs list of documents and were found to have been destroyed, the . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Blandford EAT 20-May-1997
The tribunal considered making an order to strike out Lambeth’s case for failure to comply with orders for directions made by the Tribunal. On the question of the circumstances in which a striking out would be justified under rule 4 of the Tribunal . .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Cited – Bilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another CA 15-Jan-2019
The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court, Agency

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.211359

Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd: ChD 1 Nov 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere with the course of justice. No new category of contempt could be introduced with respect to statements of truth made without being verified.
The policing of statements of truth had to be subject to the same over-riding objectives as applied to other part of the litigation process, and proceedings for contempt should only be brought with the permission of the court or the Attorney-General. Proceedings for contempt of court are public law proceedings and therefore when considering whether to give permission for proceedings to be taken in any particular case the court must have regard to the public interest alone. Though private interests may be affected, because the proceedings are of a public nature ‘[t]he court from which permission is sought will be concerned to see that the case is one in which the public interest requires the committal proceedings to be brought.’
The Vice-Chancellor said: ‘Proceedings for contempt are not private law proceedings. They are public law proceedings. They may in appropriate circumstances be brought by private individuals. They can always be brought by the Attorney General, but private individuals may be able to bring them. An injunction granted in an action between two private individuals restraining one from doing some act which is to the prejudice of the interests of the other can be enforced by committal proceedings brought by the party for whose benefit the injunction was granted. Committal proceedings of that character can be brought without permission. But under CPR 32.14 a private individual can only bring committal proceedings with the permission of the court. The reason for that is the nature of the proceedings. These are not proceedings where the alleged contempt consists of the breach of an order obtained by an individual in protection or furtherance of his own private rights. It is a case of an allegation of public wrong, not private wrong. Interference with the course of justice is plainly a public wrong and it is right therefore that there should be a public control over the launching of proceedings for this species of contempt. The Attorney General has a public function which needs no further explanation. The court from which permission is sought will be concerned to see that the case is one in which the public interest requires the committal proceedings to be brought. I repeat that these are not proceedings brought for the furtherance of private interests. They are brought in the public interest and are in some respects like criminal proceedings. Nonetheless they are civil proceedings and they are civil proceedings to which the overriding objective set out in CPR 1 is therefore applicable. The overriding objective enjoins the court to deal with cases justly, ensuring so far as practicable that the parties are on an equal footing, that expense is saved and that the case is dealt with in ways which are proportionate to the money involved, to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues and the financial position of each party. These are general imperatives which are as relevant, in my opinion, to an application for permission under CPR 32.14 as to any other form of civil proceedings.’

Sir Richard Scott VC
Times 17-Feb-2000, 1999 WL 1048312, [2000] FSR 393, [1999] EWHC 843 (Ch), [2000] CP Rep 39
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kirk v Walton QBD 24-Jul-2008
kirk_waltonQBD2008
The defendant sought leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant saying that she had had no honest belief in the matters deposed in her statement of truth, in that she had substantially exaggerated her injuries.
Held: . .
Applied – Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v. Ball and Others ChD 17-May-2004
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 . .
Cited – Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc (t/a Sony Computer Entertainment Inc) v Ball and Others ChD 17-May-2004
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. . .
Cited – KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton CA 20-Nov-2008
The claimant had been sued for the misuse of trademarks by selling motorcycles imported via a parallel market. It claimed that the defendant had filed false evidence in that action, and now appealed a refusal by the judge to bring contempt . .
Cited – Barnes (T/A Pool Motors) v Seabrook and Others Admn 23-Jul-2010
In each of three cases, the former defendants sought leave to bring claims for contempt of court in respect of what it said were fraudulent claims by the respondents. The defendants argued that a party had first to go to the Attorney General.
Cited – Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and Another ChD 4-Feb-2011
The parties disputed ownership of a customer database. An interim order had been made prohibiting the defendants’ from its use pending trial. A mandatory order had been made for the disclosure of a list of contacts made, and the claimant complained . .
Cited – Nield and Another v Loveday and Another Admn 13-Jul-2011
The court considered the institution of proceedings for contempt of court based upon an allegation that a document filed in court proceedings and supported by a statement of truth was false. In this case the defendant argued that the first claimant . .
Cited – Stobart Group Ltd and Others v Elliott QBD 11-Apr-2013
The defendant applied to the court for various officers of the cliamant companies to be subject to contempt proceedings. The claimants asked the court to strike of the defendant’s counterclaim and to make a civil restraint order against him. There . .
Cited – Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd TCC 28-Feb-2013
The defendant sought permission to bring contempt proceedings against former directors of the claimant company, saying that by means of false evidence they had secured an arbitration verdict.
Held: A reckless disregard for the truth or falsity . .
Cited – Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another CA 15-Jan-2019
The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.83345

Re Dad: FD 15 Sep 2015

Return hearing following Collection order with arrest of father. The Court heard and reinforced severe criticism of the standard wording used in the Order, particularly in view of its failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules as regards penal notices.
Held: ‘ this is not a situation where I can waive the procedural defect. All applications to commit require proper adherence to the requirements of any enactment and rule of court. In the present case there is a serious defect in the order upon which the application to commit is based. I simply cannot commit Mr C to prison for any breach of the order, however egregious. In my view that has the consequence that I must indeed strike out the application as a threshold decision, and Mr C must not be required to give any evidence or to defend himself on the substance of this application.’

Holman J
[2015] EWHC 2655 (Fam)
Bailii
Family Procedure Rules 2010
England and Wales

Contempt of Court

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.552781

The Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others: ChD 30 Jan 2003

The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a right not to incriminate himself, and gave no evidence. He now claimed to have been acting under duress.
Held: Duress required to be shown immediate threats of violence, which remained operative, to which a reasonable person would have taken heed, and an inability to escape the threat. The defendant had failed to establish duress. These proceedings were civil and it was not for the claimant to establish the absence of duress. Evidence of duress in civil contempt proceedings goes merely as a mitigation, and is not a defence. This is not incompatible with the defendants’ human rights. The defendant had not purged his contempt even now, and a sentence of immediate imprisonment of four months was appropriate.

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Times 11-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 91 (Ch), Times 20-Mar-2003
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 – Cobra Golf Inc and Another v Rata and Others ChD 11-Oct-1996
An Anton Piller order was wrongfully made where it was used in order to get information to found a later prosecution. The privilege against self incrimination is available under Section 14 of the 1968 Act in contempt proceedings despite the fact . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch HL 1975
The House considered the availability of duress as a defence on a charge of aiding and abetting murder. Referring to the basic elements of criminal liability, mens rea and actus reus: ‘Both terms have, however, justified themselves by their . .
Cited – Regina v Hudson and Taylor CACD 17-Mar-1971
Two teenage girls committed perjury by failing to identify the defendant. When prosecuted they pleaded duress, on the basis that they had been warned by a group, including a man with a reputation for violence, that if they identified the defendant . .
Cited – Regina v Sharpe 1987
A member of a gang of robbers sought to establish a defence of duress. The trial judge had directed the jury ‘but in my judgment the defence of duress is not available to an accused who voluntarily exposes and submits himself to illegal compulsion . . .
Cited – Coca-Cola Co and Another v Gilbey and Others ChD 10-Oct-1995
A defendant in an infringement case was ordered to provide information on his associate co-infringers despite his claimed risk of violence. Such a threat was no defence to an action for contempt of court. Duress in civil cases goes as to mitigation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Evidence

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178786

Dallas v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Nov 2013

The applicant challenged her conviction for contempt of court in that whilst a juror, she researched the case before her on the internet, discovering that the defendant had faced an earlier allegation broadly similar. She now said that the conviction orose from failure to follow a direction, not an order. The court set the question for the parties: ‘Did the act of which the applicant was convicted constitute a ‘criminal offence under national law’ at the time when it was committed, for the purposes of Article 7 of the Convention, having regard to the test for contempt of court set out and applied by the Divisional Court in paragraph 38 of its judgment and the test outlined in previous domestic judgment judgments’

38395/12 – Communicated Case, [2013] ECHR 1232, [2014] ECHR 1247
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Sport Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-May-1991
The newspaper was accused of disclosing details of the previous convictions of an absconded suspect in a murder investigation, despite a prior warning from the police that any such publication would be likely to prejudice future criminal . .
Cited – Schot and Another, v Regina CACD 12-May-1997
Jurors, after retirement refused to deliver a verdict claiming personal reasons. The were summoned to court to answer charges of contempt of court. Explaining the contempt proceedings that the jurors faced, the trial judge said: ‘[I]n so far as . .
Cited – Attorney General v Fraill and Another Admn 16-Jun-2011
The trial judge had directed his jury at a criminal trial: ‘You will make your decision about this case based solely upon the evidence which you hear during this trial, in this courtroom and upon nothing else. Most of us these days have access to . .
At Admn – Attorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Contempt of Court

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518835

Director of Public Prosecutions v Scarlett: CACD 7 Feb 2000

A defendant subject to a confiscation order in criminal proceedings for drugs related offences could be ordered to repatriate assets from banks accounts held abroad. The absence of an explicit power in this behalf did not prevent the order because of the wide power to make such ancillary orders to ensure compliance with an order as appeared necessary. An additional punishment for contempt for failing to obey was not punishing him twice, and he could purge the contempt if he chose.

Times 07-Feb-2000
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Banking, Contempt of Court

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.80043

HM Attorney General v Davey: Admn 29 Jul 2013

The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had researched the internet about allegations against the defendants not put to the jury.
Held: Both defendants were guilty of contempt.
There were however inconsistencies in the directions given and this was a matter which might be taken up by the Rules Committee.

Sir James Munby P, Sweeney J
[2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc CA 1987
The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd HL 1991
Injunctions had been granted to preserve the status quo in proceedings brought to prevent the publication of the book ‘Spycatcher’. The defendants published extracts, and now appealed a finding that they had acted in contempt.
Held: The . .
Cited – Attorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .

Cited by:
Cited – HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .
Cited – HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513743

Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc: CA 1987

The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be committed if no specific order has been made by the court affecting anyone other than those involved in the proceedings. At common law, if the court makes an order regulating its own procedure and the purpose of the order is plainly to protect the administration of justice, then anyone who subverts that order will be guilty of contempt’.
There was no room for a state of mind which fell short of intention. Lloyd LJ said: ‘ . . that intent may exist, even though there is no desire to interfere with the course of justice. Nor need it be the sole intent. It may be inferred, even though there is no overt proof. The more obvious the interference with the course of justice, the more readily will the requisite intent be inferred.’
Sir Donaldson said of an application for contempt against a third party that: ‘I should like to emphasise with all the power at my command that this case is not primarily about national security or official secrets. It is about the right of private citizens and public authorities to seek and obtain the protection of the courts for confidential information which they claim to be their property’
Lord Donaldson MR set out the intent required to be shown: ‘. . the power of the court to commit for contempt where the conduct complained of is specifically intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice. Such an intent need not be expressly avowed or admitted, but can be inferred from all the circumstances, including the foreseeability of the consequences of the conduct. Nor need it be the sole intention of the contemnor. An intent is to be distinguished from motive or desire . .’

Lloyd LJ, Lord Donaldson MR
[1988] Ch 333, [1987] 3 All ER 276, [1987] 3 WLR 942
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – Steen v Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Attorney-General v Punch Ltd and Another CA 23-Mar-2001
The appellant appealed against a finding of contempt of court at common law as regards a report in Punch published when he had been its editor.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The A-G had failed to establish the mens rea of contempt in the . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
Cited – HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.245989

Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 27 May 2011

An associated claimant alleged contempt against another newspaper for publishing matters so as to defeat the purposes of a privacy injunction granted to her.
Held: Even though the principle claimant had been subsequenty identified with the consent of the court, the order as regards the second claimant remained in place. It was said that the Daily Mail’s article released many items of further information to identify her. False information deliberately given had other purposes, and in practice had also been damaging. However, there no purpose would be served in the court referring the matter to the Attorney-General for contempt. The claimant herself had this power, and the A-G had power to act of his own motion.

Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 1341 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – MNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Mar-2011
The defendant resisted an order preventing disclosure of information said by the claimant to be private.
Held: At the start of the hearing before herself, she had been told that the application for an interim injunction was no longer opposed. . .
Cited – Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
See Also – Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained orders restricting publication by the defendant of stories of his relationship with a woman. The order had also restrained publication of their names. The names had since been revealed under parliamentary prvilege, and the . .

Cited by:
See Also – Goodwin v NGN Ltd and VBN QBD 9-Jun-2011
goodwin_ngn4QBD11
The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.440245

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 the first hearing and contempt finding, the appeal failed.
As to the second, ‘ the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order.’
The appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered.
‘the finding of contempt made in Leeds must be quashed because:
(i) It was inappropriate to proceed immediately on the motion of the court to deal with the alleged contempt after immediate steps had been taken to remove the offending video from the internet. An adjournment was necessary to enable the matter to proceed on a fully informed basis; in any event
(ii) The failure to comply with Part 48 of the Rules resulted in there being no clear statement, orally or in writing, of the conduct said to comprise a contempt for contravening the section 4(2) order in place;
(iii) It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order;
(iv) The haste with which the contempt proceedings were conducted led to an inability of counsel to mitigate fully on the appellant’s behalf.’

Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Turner, McGowan JJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 1856, [2018] WLR(D) 503
Bailii, WLRD
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2), Criminal Justice Act 1925 41
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Nicholls v Nicholls CA 20-Dec-1996
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 . .
Cited – Fort Locks Self Storage Limited v Deakin CA 2017
. .
Cited – Re West CACD 17-Jul-2014
W, a barrister, appealed against a conviction for contempt of court. He had declined to comply with the directions asked of him by the judge at a pre-trial hearing, saying that the client’s instructions that he was not guilty were sufficient. He was . .
Cited – Regina v Montgomery CACD 19-Jul-1994
A witness had refused to give evidence, and found to have committed contempt.
Held: Guidelines were given on sentencing for offences of interfering with the course of justice, criminal contempt, refusal to give evidence and so forth.
The . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Harkins Admn 26-Apr-2013
The Attorney General sought the committal for contempt of the respondents who were said to have published details which might identify two notorious convicted criminals wose identties were protected by injunction. Both defendants indicated that they . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.624157

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 it was held that it should not have been allowed. A person accused of contempt, like the defendant in a criminal trial, has the right to remain silent.
Where a respondent to an application for committal for contempt had chosen to deploy affidavit evidence before the court, the court had a discretion to allow cross-examination on the contents of those affidavits. However, the court must first be satisfied that the cross-examination will be confined to the allegations of contempt, rather than to wider matters relevant to the merits of the proceedings.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘This case raises questions of some importance. Mr Sparrow [Counsel for the plaintiffs] submitted that in proceedings of this kind the defendant can be compelled to give evidence even against himself. Mr Sparrow pointed out that this is a case of civil contempt and not criminal. The difference is well known. A criminal contempt is one which takes place in the face of the court, or which prejudices a fair trial and so forth. A civil contempt is different. A typical case is disobedience to an order made by the court in a civil action.
I cannot accept counsel’s submission. Although this is a civil contempt, it partakes of the nature of a criminal charge. The defendant is liable to be punished for it. He may be sent to prison. The rules as to criminal charges have always been applied to such a proceeding. I see that Cross J in Yianni v Yianni, so decided; and furthermore we ourselves in this court, in Re Bramblevale Ltd, said that it must be proved with the same degree of satisfaction as in a criminal charge. It follows that the accused is not bound to give evidence unless he chooses to do so. In this connection I quote what Bowen LJ said in Redfern v. Redfern [1891] P 139 at 147, [1886-90] All ER Rep 524 at 528:-
‘It is one of the inveterate principles of English law that a party cannot be compelled to discover that which, if answered, would tend to subject him to any punishment, penalty, forfeiture . . ‘no one is bound to incriminate himself”
This was not always the law in the case of civil contempt. In the days of Sir William Blackstone, 200 years ago, civil contempt was an exception to the general principle. In those days a plaintiff was entitled to deliver interrogatories to the defendant, which the defendant was bound to answer on oath. In his Commentaries (18th Edn, 1829, Bk4, page 287) Sir William Blackstone said that:-
‘this method of making the defendant answer upon oath to a criminal charge, is not agreeable to the genius of the common law in any other instance’;
and he went on to say at page 288:-
‘by long and immemorial usage,[it] has now become the law of the land’.
I am prepared to accept that such a rule did exist in the days of Sir William Blackstone. But I do not think it exists any longer today. The genius of the common law has prevailed. I hold that a man who is charged with contempt of court cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories or to give evidence himself to make him provide his guilt. I reject the submission that the defendant is a compellable witness in the contempt proceedings against him.’
Megaw LJ observed that where there is a bona fide application to cross-examine a deponent on his affidavit in interlocutory proceedings, the application should normally be granted.

Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ
[1971] 2 QB 67, [1971] 1 All ER 1141
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others ChD 30-Jan-2003
The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a . .
Cited – Inplayer Ltd and Another v Thorogood CA 25-Nov-2014
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 . .
Cited – VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov and Others QBD 18-Nov-2015
Application for the first defendant to be committed for alleged contempt of court for having failed to make disclosure of documents as required by a court order.
Whipple J said: ‘In this case, the extent to which the Defendants are in . .
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.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.179891

Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd: HL 1973

The House considered the bringing of contempt proceedings by the Attorney General.
Held: The Attorney General must prove to the criminal standard of proof that the respondent had committed an act or omission calculated to interfere with or prejudice the due administration of justice; conduct is calculated to interfere with or prejudice the due administration of justice if there is a real risk, as opposed to a remote possibility, that interference or prejudice would result.
Lord Reid said: ‘I agree with your Lordships that the Attorney-General has a right to bring before the court any matter which he thinks may amount to contempt of court and which he considers should in the public interest be brought before the court. The party aggrieved has the right to bring before the court any matter which he alleges amounts to contempt but he has no duty to do so. So if the party aggrieved failed to take action either because of expense or because he thought it better not to do so, very serious contempt might escape punishment if the Attorney-General had no right to act. But the Attorney-General is not obliged to bring before the court every prima facie case of contempt reported to him. It is entirely for him to judge whether it is in the public interest that he should act.’
Lord Cross said: ‘It is easy enough to see that any publication which prejudges an issue in pending proceedings ought to be forbidden if there is any real risk that it may influence the tribunal . . But why, it may be said, should a publication be prohibited when there is no such risk? The reason is that one cannot deal with one particular publication in isolation. A publication prejudging an issue in pending litigation which is itself innocuous enough may provoke replies which are far from innocuous but which, as they are replies, it would seem unfair to restrain. So gradually the public would become habituated to, look forward to, and resent the absence of, preliminary discussions in the ‘media’ of any case which aroused widespread interest. An absolute rule, though it may seem to be unreasonable if one looks only to the particular case, is necessary in order to prevent a gradual slide towards trial by newspaper or television.’

Lord Cross, Lord Reid, Lord Simon of Glaisdale
[1973] 3 All ER 54, [1973] 3 WLR 298, [1974] AC 273
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – in Re Lonrho Plc HL 1989
A jury trial procedure for contempt would never be appropriate: ‘If the trial is to be by jury, the possibility of prejudice by advance publicity directed to an issue which the jury will have to decide is obvious. The possibility that a professional . .
Cited – Attorney General v Michael Ronald Unger; Manchester Evening News Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited Admn 3-Jul-1997
Complaint was made that the defendant newspapers had caused a serious prejudice to a trial by articles published before the trial of the defendant in criminal proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to theft at the magistrates’ court after she had . .
Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Contempt of Court

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.180689

HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another: QBD 27 May 2016

Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the matter beyond the offence under section 41 of the 1925 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. The offence had been committed. Section 41 of the 1925 Act did not remove the possibility of a charge of contenpt of court for taking photographs in court.
Whilst it was pssible that a person taking photographs might not have the necessary mens rea for the offence: ‘A person cannot defend himself by evidence that, ignorant of the criminal law and unaware of the prohibition on photography, he could not intend to interfere with the administration of justice. If there were no signs prohibiting the taking of photographs in the part of the building where the act takes place or prohibiting the use of mobile phones in court, and there may be none say in canteens, the court could not be left powerless to deal with the risk created to the administration of justice as a result of ignorance of the criminal law on the part of the person whose acts create or risk creating the interference. The same applies to publication of illegally taken photographs in the Facebook postings.
Where the act which constitutes a contempt in the face of the court, or one closely akin to such a contempt, is not a crime, the deliberate breach of a court order of which he has notice will be sufficient. It is not necessary that the person additionally intended by his breach to interfere with the administration of justice, though for the reasons we have set out and which were considered in Dallas, it will generally readily be inferred that such an intention is established. It does not matter in principle whether the order is specific, as in a judge’s direction to a jury on internet searches, or general, as in the public notices in court buildings. The latter are there, either reflecting the criminal law, or, where not, expressing what every judge requires and relies on to let the public and participants know what is required for the administration of justice. Where a person knows of the court order and deliberately breaches it, he knows that the prohibition which he breaches was put in place to prevent interference with the course of justice. Therefore, the questions whether the breach was knowing and deliberate and whether it was intended to interfere with the course of justice amount to the same question, even if the person may not have realised or understood quite how the administration of justice could be interfered with. He would know that it would be put at risk.’

Thomas LCJ L, Ouseley J
[2016] EWHC 1241 (QB), [2016] EMLR 22, [2016] 2 Cr App R 15
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1925 41
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc CA 1987
The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Sport Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-May-1991
The newspaper was accused of disclosing details of the previous convictions of an absconded suspect in a murder investigation, despite a prior warning from the police that any such publication would be likely to prejudice future criminal . .
Cited – Schot and Another, v Regina CACD 12-May-1997
Jurors, after retirement refused to deliver a verdict claiming personal reasons. The were summoned to court to answer charges of contempt of court. Explaining the contempt proceedings that the jurors faced, the trial judge said: ‘[I]n so far as . .
Cited – Regina v Vincent D (Contempt of Court: Illegal Photography) CACD 2004
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 . .
Cited – Robertson and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Nov-2007
Gough, ‘the naked rambler’, argued that his desire to appear naked in court, an act which he characterised as a fundamental freedom, was not an act calculated to offend the authority and dignity of the court; in order for his naked appearance to . .
Cited – Attorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
Cited – Morris v Crown Office CA 1970
The applicants had been engaged in a calculated and coordinated campaign of disruption of the court.
Held: ‘The archaic description of these proceedings as ‘contempt of court’ is in my view unfortunate and misleading. It suggests that they are . .
Cited – Dallas v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Feb-2016
Test for contempt was accessible and foreseeable.
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court in that whilst acting as a juror, and in defiance of an explicit direction from the judge had researched the defendant in the internet, and passed on her findings to other jurors.
Held: the . .

Cited by:
Cited – HM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.564987

Bird v Hadkinson: ChD 4 Mar 1999

A party ordered to make disclosure in Mareva proceedings, could be found in contempt where the answers given were technically true, but misleading because of their incompleteness. The party has a clear duty to provide full and accurate disclosure. A deliberate intention to breach the order was not a necessary element for a finding of contempt of court.
Neuberger J
Times 07-Apr-1999, [1999] BPIR 653
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) HL 25-Nov-1994
The actions of company employees, acting in the course of their employment and in contempt may put the company employer in contempt also, and even though the company may have given explicit instructions that no infringing agreement should be entered . .

Cited by:
Cited – Daltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others ChD 3-May-2005
Application was made for leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court. David Richards J said that: ‘Allegations that statements of case and witness statements contain deliberately false statements are by no means uncommon and, in a fair number . .
Cited – Gulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd v Idisi ComC 22-Nov-2000
Application to commit defendant to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.78410

Financial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA: CA 8 Mar 2002

The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant.
Held: The Ashworth Hospital case seemed to have widened the meaning of ‘necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime’ which was the test under section 10 for the disclosure against a newspaper. The human rights of freedom of the press also must be considered. The respondents sought to make a claim for breach of confidence, and accordingly the tests under section 10 was satisfied. The source’s evidently maleficent purpose was critical.
Sedley LJ acknowledged the need to read section 10 of the 1981 Act compatibly with the Convention: ‘The purpose of s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is to limit to the necessary minimum any requirement upon journalists to reveal their sources. It has now to be read and applied by our courts, so far as possible, compatibly with the Convention rights: Human Rights Act 1998, s.3(1). For reasons touched on earlier in this judgment, there should be no difficulty about this; but that is not to say that the Convention can simply be treated as background, for it and its jurisprudence may both amplify and modify the hitherto accepted meaning and effect of s.10. For present purposes the Convention right which is in play is the qualified right spelt out in art. 10.’
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Times 21-Mar-2002, Gazette 18-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 274, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229, [2002] EMLR 446
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10, European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd CA 18-Dec-2000
The court can order the identity of a wrongdoer to be revealed where the person against whom the order was sought had become involved in his tortious acts. This might apply even where the acts were unlawful, but fell short of being tortious. There . .
Cited – Camelot Group Plc v Centaur Communications Plc QBD 15-Jul-1997
Human rights law is no aid in protecting a journalist against an order requiring the return of confidential documents, even though this might identify the source of leak. . .
Appeal from – Interbrew SA v Financial Times Ltd and Others ChD 19-Dec-2001
The claimant was involved in takeover proceedings. Certain confidential documents were taken, doctored, and released to and published by the defendants who now resisted orders for disclosure of the source.
Held: The court must balance the . .
Cited – P v T Ltd ChD 7-May-1997
A order for the disclosure of documents can be proper if it is the only method of founding proceedings against a third party, even though there might be no sufficient proof without the documents. An order was made because it was necessary in the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Appeal from – Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2009
The claimants said that an order that they deliver up documents leaked to them regarding a possible takeover violated their right to freedom of expression. They complained that such disclosure might lead to the identification of journalistic . .
Cited – AMM v HXW QBD 7-Oct-2010
amm_hxwQBD10
The claimant had sought and been granted an injunction to prevent the defendant publicising matters which had passed between them and which were he said private.
Held: The jurisdiction to grant such injunctions was now established. Publication . .
Cited – Richard v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 26-May-2017
Disclosure of Journalists’s Source ordered
The claimant had been investigated in connection with allegations (not proceeded with) of historic sexual abuse. The first defendant received information in advance of a search of the claimant’s house, and filmed and broadcast this from a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.167726

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and News Group Newspapers Ltd: Admn 19 Jul 2011

The court considered the sentence for contempt of court by the defendant newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) in their online publication of a photograph which had not been cropped in the way required to avoid the prejudice complained of.
Held: Though in one case the photograph had been removed after only a few hours, each defendant was ordered to pay a fine of pounds 15,000 and the A-G’s costs summarily assessed.
Moses LJ, Owen J
[2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General v ITV Central Ltd Admn 15-Jul-2008
The Attorney General sought a finding of contempt against the defendant television company in respect of its reporting of a criminal trial. The defendant in the trial faced a charge of murder. The company broacast to the region on the morning of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.441965

Morris v Crown Office: 1970

References: [1970] 2 QB 114
Coram: Salmon LJ
Ratio:The purpose of contempt proceedings is ‘effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – HM Solicitor General -v- Cox and Another QBD (Bailii, [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB))
    Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 07-Jun-16
Ref: 564992

Thomas v Gwynne; Thomas v Thomas; 3 Jul 1845

References: [1845] EngR 1096 (A), (1845) 8 Beav 312
Links: Commonlii
Process by attachment to compel an infant to convey estates sold in a creditor’s suit. It is a contenpt to interfere and prevent an infant obeying the the order of the court to convey.
This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Thomas -v- Gwynne; Thomas -v- Thomas ([1846] EngR 424 (A), Commonlii, (1845-1846) 9 Beav 275)
    An infant devisee had been ordered to convey real estate sold for payment of the testator’s debts. He made default, and was not amenable to process. The Court, under the 1 W 4 c 60 s 8, directed a person to convey in his place. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 12-Jan-16 Ref: 304238

Regina v Macrae; 19 Nov 1892

References: Times 19-Nov-1892
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Attorney General -v- Fraill and Another CACD ([2011] EWCH 1629 (Admin), [2011] EWCA Crim B2, Bailii, [2011] EWCA Crim 1570)
    The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
    Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .

The ‘Messiniaki Tolmi’: 1981

References: [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 595
Coram: Brandon LJ
While the general rule is that a Court will not hear an application for his own benefit by a person in contempt unless and until he has first purged his contempt, there is an established exception to that general rule where the purpose of the application is to appeal against, or have set aside, on whatever ground or grounds, the very order disobedience of which has put the person concerned in contempt.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation -v- Uzan and others (No 2) CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 752, Times 19-Jun-03, Gazette 28-Aug-03, [2004] 1 WLR 113)
    World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .

Regina v Schot; Regina v Barclay: CA 14 May 1997

References: Times 14-May-1997, [1997] 2 Cr App Re 303
Guidance was given on finding jurors in contempt of court; basic law and procedure are to be followed.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Attorney General -v- Fraill and Another CACD ([2011] EWCH 1629 (Admin), [2011] EWCA Crim B2, Bailii, [2011] EWCA Crim 1570)
    The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
    Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .