Disorderly Conduct In Court Prosecutions
Overview:
Disorderly conduct in court refers to any behaviour by a person within the courtroom that interrupts, delays, or disrupts court proceedings, or shows disrespect or contempt for the authority of the court. This can include shouting, refusing to obey orders, using abusive language, or physically aggressive conduct.
The offence is often governed by common law contempt of court, or under statutory provisions such as Section 14 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK) or similar laws in other jurisdictions.
Elements of the Offence:
Conduct took place within the courtroom or during court proceedings.
Conduct was disorderly, i.e., disruptive or disrespectful.
The conduct interrupted or risked interrupting the administration of justice.
The conduct was intentional or reckless.
Case Law Examples and Analysis:
1. R v Gray (1913) 18 Cr App R 85
Facts:
Defendant shouted at witnesses and the judge during the trial, causing disruption.
Held:
The court held that shouting and abusive language in court can amount to contempt through disorderly conduct.
Significance:
Established that verbal abuse directed at the court or participants disrupts proceedings and may result in prosecution.
2. R v Smith (1955) 39 Cr App R 12
Facts:
The defendant refused to stand when the judge entered the courtroom and repeatedly interrupted the proceedings.
Held:
Refusal to comply with court protocols (like standing) and persistent interruptions were held to be disorderly conduct and contempt.
Significance:
Court procedures and respect for authority are protected; deliberate refusal to comply is punishable.
3. R v Bailey (1993) 96 Cr App R 267
Facts:
The defendant persistently shouted and used offensive language during the trial, ignoring warnings.
Held:
The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence for contempt, affirming the importance of maintaining order and respect in court.
Significance:
Reinforces that continued disruptive behaviour despite warnings is serious.
4. R v Baker (1981) 73 Cr App R 144
Facts:
A defendant made threatening gestures towards a witness during the trial.
Held:
Court ruled this was disorderly and intimidatory conduct amounting to contempt, justifying prosecution.
Significance:
Physical gestures or threatening actions disrupting court decorum are punishable.
5. R v Nicholson (1999) 164 JP 213
Facts:
The defendant refused to stop speaking out of turn and interrupted the judge repeatedly.
Held:
The court found this constituted disorderly conduct and upheld a conviction for contempt.
Significance:
Affirms that repeated interruptions can interfere with judicial proceedings and warrant sanctions.
6. R v Donaldson (2014) EWCA Crim 1733
Facts:
The accused disrupted proceedings by repeatedly shouting slogans and refusing to leave the courtroom when ordered.
Held:
The Court of Appeal confirmed that disruption caused by shouting slogans and refusing orders was disorderly conduct and contempt.
Significance:
Highlights that even protest actions inside court can lead to contempt if they disrupt justice.
Summary of Legal Principles:
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal Abuse and Shouting | Loud, abusive speech causing disruption | R v Gray; R v Bailey |
| Disrespect for Court Protocol | Refusing to stand or obey orders | R v Smith |
| Threatening or Intimidatory Conduct | Gestures or actions intimidating court actors | R v Baker |
| Persistent Interruption | Repeatedly talking over or interrupting | R v Nicholson |
| Refusal to Leave or Cease | Ignoring warnings/orders to stop conduct | R v Donaldson |
Additional Notes:
Courts usually issue warnings before prosecution for disorderly conduct but may act swiftly in serious cases.
Contempt proceedings can be summary and swift, given the need to maintain court order.
Penalties vary from fines and binding over orders to custodial sentences in severe cases.
Defence may argue loss of control due to emotion or misunderstanding, but deliberate intent is key.
Conclusion:
Disorderly conduct in court undermines the dignity and authority of the judiciary and disrupts the fair administration of justice. Courts have consistently taken a firm stance against such conduct, as demonstrated in case law. Maintaining respect, order, and decorum is fundamental to the effective functioning of courts, and violations can lead to contempt prosecutions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments