Contempt of Court - 1998

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 25 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

In the Matter of 'Ys' In the Matter of 'As' In the Matter of 'Ahs' In the Matter of Criminal Justice Act 1988 -v- In the Matter of an Application By Crown Prosecution Service for an Order of Committal [1998] EWHC Admin 87
28 Jan 1998 Admn	Contempt of Court
	Link[s] omitted

Gillian Wilson -v- John Jack Webster [1998] EWCA Civ 355; [1998] 1 FLR 1097 CA; [1998] 2 FCR 575
26 Feb 1998 CA Sir Stephen Brown P, Sir Patrick Russell	Contempt of Court	Casemap 1 Citers
	There is no reason in law to disallow someone applying for a contemnor to be committed, from appealing against the sentence imposed, but it would rare to allow interference. Brown P: "It is believed that it may be that criminal proceedings will follow in relation to this same matter. I have to say that that is of no concern to this court which is dealing with the matter of contempt. That is not a matter which can affect this appeal." Sir Patrick Russell: "the order should not inhibit the prosecution of the respondent, which we are told is pending."
	Administration of Justice Act 1960 13 (2)
	Link[s] omitted

Raghbir Singh Wahiwala (By her Next Friend Gurwinderjit Singh Wahiwala) -v- Gurminder Singh [1998] EWCA Civ 360
26 Feb 1998 CA	Family, Contempt of Court
	Link[s] omitted

Her Majesty's Attorney General and Martin John Rld Stevenson [1998] EWHC Admin 314
12 Mar 1998 Admn	Contempt of Court
	Link[s] omitted

Connor Clark -v- Braintree District Council [1998] EWCA Civ 576
31 Mar 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	[ Bailii ]

Hussein -v- Ghoprial and Ghoprial [1998] EWCA Civ 593
1 Apr 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	Breach of undertaking - violence.
	Link[s] omitted

Stephanie Waugh -v- Andrew James Stewart [1998] EWCA Civ 611
2 Apr 1998 CA	Contempt of Court, Family
	Link[s] omitted

Lyons -v- Lyons [1998] EWCA Civ 918
5 Jun 1998 CA	Family, Contempt of Court
	Husband's appeal against finding that he was in contempt of court.
	Link[s] omitted

General Medical Council -v- British Broadcasting Corporation [1998] EWCA Civ 949
10 Jun 1998 CA	Contempt of Court, Media, Health Professions
	For purposes of contempt of court, proceedings before the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council were not a court which was accordingly not entitled to control reporting
	Link[s] omitted

Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Tower Hamlets -v- John Long [1998] EWCA Civ 995
12 Jun 1998 CA Buler-Sloss, Ward LJJ	Contempt of Court
	The defendant tenant had ben sentenced to prison for contempt of court having misbehaved in contravention of order made relating to his occupation under a tenancy of the claimant. Held: The offence was serious but "Very often it has been said, by people who are not accustomed to going to prison, that the clang of the prison gates itself, and the inevitable indignities of being placed as a prisoner in prison, do have a mark effect upon the individual, and that marked effect does rather diminish the longer the period is that somebody is inside. I can understand entirely why the Recorder thought that this was a serious matter, but he might perhaps have reflected, having come to the conclusion, from which I would not wish to dissent, that an immediate custodial sentence was necessary, whether he needed, with a first offender in these circumstances, to do more than mark the court's grave disapproval of his behaviour by a sentence that would reflect that it was necessary to go to prison but not did require him to spend a period which a sentence of three months would require him to spend in prison; that is to say, under the present law, some six weeks or so. " In the circumstances three weeks was sufficient.
	Link[s] omitted

Anthony Francis Riou Benson -v- Samantha Jane Richards [1998] EWCA Civ 1006
16 Jun 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	Link[s] omitted

Mark Kenneth Willis Joanne Willis; Simon John Willis and -v- Dawn Valerie Mary Willis [1998] EWCA Civ 1012
16 Jun 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	[ Bailii ]

Belgolaise Sa -v- Purchandani
24 Jun 1998 QBD Colman J	Contempt of Court	Casemap 1 Citers
	Committal proceedings for contempt should be only the last resort and for flagrant refusal to disclose in breach of court order. It must be exceptional to dispense with penal notice, and impossible to do so retrospectively.

Regina -v- High Sheriff of Greater London ex parte Roberts [1998] EWHC Admin 753
15 Jul 1998 Admn Tucker J	Contempt of Court
	Link[s] omitted

Neil -v- Ryan [1998] EWCA Civ 1277; [1998] 2 FLR 1068
23 Jul 1998 CA Judge LJ	Contempt of Court	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered the power to increase a sentence of committal for contempt of court: "Before considering any increase in sentence or changing the impact of any sentence adversely to the defendant we have to remind ourselves that this is a power which must be used sparingly. The sort of circumstances in which it could reasonably be used would be to approach the problem as if the case were a reference by the Attorney-General under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Plainly this is not a case which comes within that jurisdiction, but a sentence should not be increased under that Act unless the court is satisfied that it is not merely lenient, but 'unduly' lenient. And, what is more, if the court reaches that conclusion, when deciding the appropriate level of sentence the court must also reflect the element of what is sometimes described as double jeopardy."
	Link[s] omitted

In Re Swaptronics Ltd [1998] All ER (D) 407
24 Jul 1998 ChD Laddie J	Contempt of Court, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A party who was in contempt of court should not be debarred from continuing to take a proper part in a court action unless that contempt was serious enough seriously to interfere with the fair conduct of the trial. "The courts need powers of punishment with which to enforce their orders. The ones they have at present are adequate. They "do not need a power which deprives the litigant of his right to litigate. Indeed it seems to me that were the courts to refuse to allow those in contempt access to the courts simply on the grounds that they are in contempt, they could well be acting in breach of the provisions of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights which entitles everyone to the determination of his civil rights by means of a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. The "everyone" in that Article is not subject to an exception in respect of people who are guilty of serious offences or contempt of court." and "Sir Robert Megarry’s Miscellany-at-Law records that in 1631 a litigant who threw a brickbat at a judge, but missed, had his right hand chopped off and nailed to the gibbet on which he was thereafter hanged in the presence of the court. I am not sure what would have happened to him had his aim been better."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Governing Body of Shenfield High School -v- Ian Guttridge [1998] EWCA Civ 1310
28 Jul 1998 CA	Contempt of Court, Education
	Link[s] omitted

Anthony Francis Riou Benson -v- Samantha Jane Richards [1998] EWCA Civ 1335
30 Jul 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	Link[s] omitted

Attorney-General -v- Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd [1998] EWHC Admin 769; [1999] 1 WLR 361; [1999] EMLR 39; [1998] 4 All ER 49
31 Aug 1998 QBD Simon Brown LJ, Thomas J	Contempt of Court, Criminal Practice, Media	Casemap 1 Cites
	The questions asked of a court when staying a criminal trial because of newspaper reporting, and when assessing a contempt of court, are different, and the stay of a trial need have no implication that a contempt has been committed. The strict liability rules did not help. Simon Brown LJ said: "It seems to me necessarily to follow . . that one and the same publication may well constitute a contempt and yet, even though not substantially mitigated in its effect by a temporary stay and/or change of venue, not so prejudice the trial as to undermine the safety of any subsequent conviction. To my mind that can only be because section 2(2) postulates a lesser degree of prejudice than is required to make good an appeal against conviction…In short section 2(2) is designed to avoid (and where necessary punish) publications even if they merely risk prejudicing proceedings, whereas a stay will generally only be granted where it is recognised that any subsequent conviction would otherwise be imperilled, and a conviction will only be set aside…if it is actually unsafe." As to the case of Unger, Simon Brown LJ said: "I still think that to create a seriously arguable ground of appeal is a sufficient basis for finding strict liability contempt. Clearly it is a relevant consideration too that when a judge at first instance is deciding whether or not to grant a temporary stay. But more particularly the trial judge will ask himself: "is there a real danger that the jury cannot reach a just verdict, or the defendant have a fair trial?" The judge will have to form a view as to just how seriously prejudicial the publication is, to what extent it can be mitigated by special directions, how desirable it is to avert a possible risk of a successful appeal on that ground, and how inconvenient and costly in the particular circumstances a stay would be (depending in large part no doubt on how far into the trial the problem arises)."
	Contempt of Court Act 1981 2(2)
	Link[s] omitted

N -v- R
3 Sep 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	Serious breach of domestic violence injunction should normally be met with immediate sentence of imprisonment. Appeals against leniency of sentence only rarely successful, but proper in this case. Suspension of sentence removed.
	Administration of Justice Act 1960 13(2)

Anthony Benson -v- Samantha Jane Richards [1998] EWCA Civ 1476
5 Oct 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	Link[s] omitted

Cambridgeshire County Council -v- D [1999] 2 Fam LR 42
26 Oct 1998 CA	Contempt of Court	Casemap 1 Citers
	When sentencing for breach of injunction, amounting to contempt, the court should sentence for the circumstances of the breach only, and not seek to punish for the circumstances leading to the injunction upon which it had been based.

X -v- Dempster [1999] 1 FLR 894
9 Nov 1998 FD Wilson J	Family, Contempt of Court	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The columnist Nigel Dempster had written that the mother in forthcoming proceedings relating to a child was a bad mother. Held: The article was a contempt of court. Such an allegation required proof to the criminal standard. At common law the publisher had no liability in contempt without knowledge. Contempt applied as regards wards of court where the publication related to the children rather than the proceedings: "[E]vents in the lives of the children in the present case which are already in the public domain or which do not relate to the proceedings can be the subject of publication." The court set out rules for what could be published despite the existence of an order of wardship. There is no common law restraint on identification of parties to Children Act proceedings.

Council of City of Manchester -v- Margaret Mccann Richard McCann [1998] EWCA Civ 1775
16 Nov 1998 CA	Contempt of Court	Casemap
	A threat made against a witness is clearly an insult within the Act, and a threat made as a witness returns home after court is also a contempt even though not strictly in the face of the Court.
	County Courts Act 1984 118
	Link[s] omitted

In Re M (A Minor) (Consent Order: Committal)
31 Dec 1998 CA	Contempt of Court
	Contempt may be used by a circuit judge of his own motion in order to enforce a contact order but should be used in exceptional and urgent cases only and the judge who initiates contempt proceedings should not also adjudicate on the motion for committal.