1. CONTEMPT OF COURT 2

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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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?

7. JURIES 2 main points here – a. Publishing the deliberations of a jury
s 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

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. 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.