Contempt of Court Act

The offence of contempt of court has been largely codified by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. A distinction is sometimes drawn between criminal contempt (tending to obstruct the course of justice) and civil contempt (disobedience to a court order), but either may be punished summarily by any superior court. The court has a power of imprisonment for a fixed period up to two years for the Crown Court and other superior courts, or one month by inferior courts: more common is a fine, limited to £1000 for inferior courts. These penalties replace the indefinite imprisonment formerly available, though a determinate sentence may still be shortened by an appropriate apology and/or compliance with the court's order. 

Attorney-General v BBC [1980] 3 All ER 161, HL

The BBC planned a TV broadcast concerning the Exclusive Brethren, which would argue inter alia that since their meeting rooms were not open to the public they should not be regarded as places of worship. The Brethren were at that time on dispute with the local authority over liability for rates on their meeting rooms, and the matter was to be heard at the local valuation court some three weeks later. The Attorney-General sought an injunction to restrain the broadcast as a contempt of court, and the Divisional Court accepted DD's undertaking in lieu. Allowing DD's appeal, the House of Lords said the local valuation court was not a court in spite of its name, having essentially administrative functions.

Peach Grey v Sommers [1995] 2 All ER 513, DC

A solicitors' clerk R claimed wrongful dismissal by his previous employers AA. Committing R to prison for a month, the Divisional Court said an Industrial Tribunal exercises the judicial power of the state; intentional interference with witnesses in current proceedings before such a tribunal is hence a contempt of court and punishable as such.

General Medical Council v BBC [1998] 3 All ER 426, Times 11/6/98, CA

The GMC, whose professional conduct committee was at that time hearing allegations of serious negligence by three doctors, sought an injunction to restrain the BBC from broadcasting a programme about the events concerned. Affirming Penry-Davey J, the Court of Appeal said the proceedings were undoubtedly judicial rather than administrative, and were performed in the public interest, but the GMC was not exercising "the judicial power of the state" and could not therefore be regarded as a court. Obiter, the court might perhaps have power to act at the instance of the Attorney-General (but not of any private litigant) to prevent any grave and obvious interference with the fairness of non-court proceedings, but it was unnecessary to consider this issue in the instant case.