1 / 9

CONTEMPT OF COURT 2

CONTEMPT OF COURT 2. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION. Deliberate/Common Law Contempt Frustrating Court Orders made against others Juries 3 rd Party costs. 3 RD PARTY COSTS ORDERS. Procedure whereby a 3 rd party i.e. one not

tacey
Download Presentation

CONTEMPT OF COURT 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONTEMPT OF COURT2

  2. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION • Deliberate/Common Law Contempt • Frustrating Court Orders made against others • Juries • 3rd Party costs

  3. 3RD PARTY COSTS ORDERS • Procedure whereby a 3rd party i.e. one not directly involved in case can be ordered to pay some of the costs where the 3rd party, by misconduct, has interfered with a court hearing and caused waste of costs. The behaviour does not have to = contempt BUT court has discretion.

  4. WHY THIS RULE? • See Att-Gen v MGN Ltd [2002]EWHC 907 (Admin) (footballers case) • Different views on the decision here – could trial have been saved? • First order made against the Home Office! • Notice must be given to 3rd Party so may challenge. • Also Rights of Appeal.

  5. DELIBERATE /COMMON LAW CONTEMPT • The ‘other’ contempt. • Referred to in s.6 Contempt of Court Act 1981 • ‘Nothing in the foregoing provisions of the Act restricts liability for Contempt of Court in respect of conduct intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice’. • NOTE -PROCEEDINGS DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACTIVE

  6. SOME EXAMPLES • Att-Gen v News Group Newspapers [1988] 2 All ER 906 (The Sun) • Att-Gen v Sport Newspapers Ltd [1991] 1 All ER 503 (Suspect on run) • Att-Gen v Hislop [1991] 1All ER 911 – (attempted interference with a civil trial)

  7. definitions • ‘Intent’ – what is the intended effect of the material? Can the publisher foresee prejudice but continues anyway. • This is a tricky area of law – not used very often but should always be remembered. • NO public interest test • Honest mistake is a defence. • No juries!

  8. Frustrating court orders made against others • See the Spycatcher case for a discussion on this issue • Shows how far the law of contempt can be stretched • Does the lack of a jury make a difference?

  9. JURIES • 2 main points here – Publishing the deliberations of a jury s.8 1981 Act and Jurors understanding their role e.g. Att-Gen v Fraill – Facebook Case Att-Gen v Dallas – Internet search

More Related