Contempt in the Face of Court

This most obvious form of contempt need not in fact take place in the courtroom, but can be in the near vicinity. It includes assaults, threats or abuse against anyone present, wilful interruption of the proceedings, and wilful disobedience of the court's legitimate orders. Any court, even a Magistrates' Court, can impose an immediate penalty for this offence.

Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1 All ER 1079, CA

A group of about twenty students supporting the Welsh language disrupted a trial in London. Lawton J imposed a £50 fine on those who were prepared to apologise, and three months' imprisonment on the rest. The Court of Appeal affirmed a High Court judge's power to commit offenders to prison in these circumstances, and said the sentences were not excessive. However, the students had already spent a week in prison and the Court was prepared to substitute binding over for twelve months for the remainder of their sentence.

Bodden v Commissioner of Police [1989] 3 All ER 833, CA

P used a loud-hailer outside the Bow Street magistrates' court to address a noisy crowd demonstrating against one of the trials taking place that day. Another trial was disrupted by the noise, and the magistrate in that trial ordered P brought before him. After a struggle P was brought into court and agreed to stop the noise, but he was then charged with assaulting one of the police officers who had enforced the magistrate's order. When no evidence was offered on this charge P brought an action for wrongful arrest. Reversing the County Court judge, Beldam LJ said a magistrate has power to hold in contempt a person who wilfully or recklessly interrupts the proceedings of the court, whether the act is done inside or outside the court.

It is also a contempt of court for a witness to refuse to give evidence, either generally or by refusing to answer particular questions, when called upon to do so.

R v Phillips (1984) 78 Cr App R 88, CA

A 19-year-old prisoner D, having been threatened by another prisoner X, refused to give evidence at X's trial for murder. X was subsequently convicted of manslaughter on other evidence, but D was committed to prison for contempt of court. The Court of Appeal noted D's age, his fear of reprisals, and the fact that his evidence would have made little difference and reduced his sentence to 14 days (consecutive to his existing sentence), but affirmed that immediate custody will be the normal response to a wilful refusal to testify.

R v Montgomery [1995] 2 All ER 28, CA

Ten men XX were charged with conspiracy to cause aggravated criminal damage by hurling missiles at a police car, as a result of which a police officer had been very seriously injured. A man D who had seen the incident and made a statement at an early stage was called to give evidence, but he refused to attend voluntarily and when brought into court he refused to testify. The Court of Appeal substituted three months' imprisonment for a twelve-month sentence imposed by the trial judge.