CONTEMPT OF COURT 2

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

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

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)

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.

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?

JURIES 2 main points here – a. Publishing the deliberations of a jury s.8 1981 Act Att-Gen v Seckerson & Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] b. Jurors understanding their role e.g. Att-Gen v Fraill – Facebook Case Att-Gen v Dallas – Internet search

NEW LAWS Some recommendations from Law Commission included in Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015 A judge’s right to order surrender of jurors’ electronic devices Powers of search Research by jurors/sharing research Other prohibited conduct

SHARING DELIBERATIONS This should be clarified by the law Academic research has always been possible but with restrictions. See section 73 of Act. Will the new offences and rules make the trial process better and fairer to accused and the juries?

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.

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.