Contempt Of Court Prosecutions
⚖️ What Is Contempt of Court?
Contempt of Court refers to actions or behaviors that disrespect the authority or impede the administration of justice. The law of contempt exists to protect the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring courts can operate without interference, threats, or undermining.
Types of Contempt:
Strict or Criminal Contempt: Willful disobedience, disrespect, or interference with court proceedings (e.g., disrupting a hearing).
Civil Contempt: Failure to comply with court orders (e.g., refusing to pay court-ordered maintenance).
Contempt by Publication: Publishing material that prejudices a fair trial or breaches court reporting restrictions.
Sub Judice Contempt: Comments or publications likely to prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Laws on Contempt of Court Prosecutions
1. Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1974) (The Spycatcher case)
Facts:
The UK government sought to restrain publication of a book by former MI5 agent Peter Wright, claiming it breached confidentiality and was in contempt.
Legal Issue:
Whether publication of information harmful to the administration of justice or state security constituted contempt.
Court’s Reasoning:
The House of Lords held that publication could amount to contempt if it risked prejudicing legal proceedings or security.
However, once the book was widely published overseas, the injunction was ineffective.
Outcome:
The case clarified limits on injunctions to prevent contempt and balanced freedom of expression with court authority.
2. AG v. Punch Ltd (2003)
Facts:
The defendant newspaper published details of jury deliberations in a criminal trial, breaching the secrecy rule.
Legal Issue:
Whether revealing jury deliberations constituted contempt by prejudicing the administration of justice.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court ruled that publication undermined the jury system's confidentiality.
Such disclosure was a serious contempt offense as it threatened the fairness of the trial process.
Outcome:
Reinforced the principle that jury secrecy is fundamental to justice and punishable by contempt.
3. AG v. Associated Newspapers Ltd (2004) (Superinjunction Case)
Facts:
The court issued a superinjunction to prevent publication of private information and details about ongoing proceedings.
Legal Issue:
Whether breaching a court injunction by publishing prohibited information amounted to contempt.
Court’s Reasoning:
Breach of a court order is a clear contempt.
The court emphasized the need for effective sanctions to deter breaches.
Outcome:
Set precedent on the enforceability of injunctions and consequences of contempt.
4. Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (1992)
Facts:
The Times published articles that allegedly prejudiced an ongoing criminal trial.
Legal Issue:
Whether publication was contempt by creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court reiterated the test for contempt by publication: the risk of serious prejudice to justice.
Emphasized that freedom of the press must be balanced against the right to a fair trial.
Outcome:
Clarified the legal threshold for contempt related to media reporting.
5. R v. Associated Newspapers Ltd (2009) (The Max Mosley case)
Facts:
The newspaper published private information about Max Mosley’s private life, breaching an injunction.
Legal Issue:
Whether such publication amounted to contempt of court.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found contempt in breaching the injunction.
However, Mosley also argued for privacy violations under human rights law.
Outcome:
Highlighted the tension between privacy rights and contempt law.
6. R v. Crawley [2011] EWCA Crim 1539
Facts:
The defendant repeatedly disobeyed court orders in family proceedings.
Legal Issue:
Whether persistent disobedience constituted contempt.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for contempt.
Emphasized that compliance with court orders is essential for the rule of law.
Outcome:
Affirmed the courts’ power to sanction persistent civil contempt.
7. Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (1990) (Spycatcher Case Revisited)
Facts:
The Guardian published excerpts from the Spycatcher book despite injunctions.
Legal Issue:
Whether continued publication constituted contempt.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court balanced national security interests against freedom of expression.
Found contempt but also recognized limits on the power of injunctions in the face of widespread publication.
Outcome:
Further refined the approach to injunctions and contempt for publication.
📌 Summary Table: Contempt of Court Cases
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| AG v. Times (1974) | Publication prejudicing justice | Injunctions limited if info widely available |
| AG v. Punch (2003) | Jury secrecy breach | Disclosure is serious contempt |
| AG v. Associated Newspapers (2004) | Breach of injunction | Clear contempt, sanctions needed |
| AG v. Times (No 2) (1992) | Risk of prejudicing trial | Test for serious prejudice established |
| R v. Associated Newspapers (2009) | Breach of privacy injunction | Contempt confirmed, privacy concerns raised |
| R v. Crawley (2011) | Persistent disobedience of court orders | Affirmed sanctions for civil contempt |
| AG v. Guardian Newspapers (1990) | Continued publication despite injunction | Limits on injunctions recognized |
✅ Conclusion
Contempt of court prosecutions play a crucial role in maintaining the authority, impartiality, and fairness of the justice system. The cases above illustrate how UK courts:
Balance freedom of expression with the need to protect fair trials.
Enforce secrecy around jury deliberations.
Respond to breaches of injunctions with sanctions.
Deal firmly with disobedience of court orders.
Navigate tensions between public interest, privacy, and court authority.
RELATED Blog
0 comments