+91 9772022200

Description

• The new CPR 81 and its related rules govern committal and sequestration in the County Court and High Court. Directions for Practice
• The Senior Courts’ Practice Direction (Committal for Contempt: Open Court): [2015] WLR 2192 (one)
• The Criminal Procedure Rules of 2015 include provisions for criminal court committal as well as court reporting restriction orders.
• The Family Court’s (as well as the Court of Protection’s) continued emphasis on open justice and transparency, which has been reflected in relevant parts of the Family Procedure Rules.
• The relevant sections of the current rules are conveniently gathered as appendices in the new edition. The importance of procedural protections in committal cases was re-emphasised by the Court of Appeal in LL v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 237, which was handed down on 10 April 2017, giving little time to comment on its relevance.
• The Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regs 2013, and the Criminal Legal Aid (Financial Resources) Regs 2013 govern the availability of public funds for those seeking to be committed for contempt. In notable instances like Re Ramet [2014] EWHC 56 (Fam) and Inplayer Ltd v Thorogood, their applicability in the context of contempt has been discussed. EWCA Civ 1511, EWCA Civ 1511, EWCA Civ 1511, EWCA
• The Law Commission in England and Wales has produced a number of reports and proposals on the subject, including the abolition of “scandalising” as a form of contempt in this jurisdiction, which was achieved by statute (although the law of “murmuring” in Scotland remains unaffected for the time being). In New Zealand, an Issues Paper from the Law Commission predicts that “scandalising” would most likely be outlawed as “untenable” in contemporary society.
• The expected report on “contempt in the face” by the Law Commission in this country has yet to be released.
  • Att-Gen v Davey, Att-Gen v Beard [2013] EWHC 2317; Att-Gen v Davey, Att-Gen v Beard, Att-Gen v Davey, Att-Gen v
• The Law Commission and the legislature have both addressed the problem of jury misbehaviour, which is a hot topic these days. The crime of exposing jury deliberations under section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 has been abolished, and new penalties under section 20 of the Juries Act 1974 have been enacted.
• A new crime has been established to address the issue of jurors doing independent investigation (particularly on the internet) into the facts of their cases or the character of the defendant(s) on trial.
• There have been a number of instances involving alleged violations of the strict responsibility rule by the media, as laid forth in ss.1 and 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and additional study of these delicate issues by the courts: Att-Gen v Times Newspapers [2012] EWHC 3195; Att-Gen v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2029; Att-Gen v Conde Nast [2015] EWHC 3322; Att-Gen v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2029; Att-Gen v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2029; Att-Gen v Conde Nast [2015] EWHC
• Another example has shed further insight on the thorny subject of what constitutes proper mens rea for contempt outside of the context of media publication: Sol-Gen v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241, where the court drew on the Scottish decision of Robertson and Gough v HMA [2007] HCJAC63 for guidance.
• Various more instances of judicial punishments, particularly in the context of the recurrent topic of false personal injury compensation claims. These are in line with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd [2012] 1 WLR 2004, which said that a prison punishment is typically appropriate.
• In April 2013, the amendments envisioned in sections 45 and 45A of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 were finally implemented. As a result, the requirements of section 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 currently apply solely in civil and family matters. There were still some inconsistencies, and it was suggested in Aitken v DPP [2015] EWHC 1079 that additional clarification by legislation could be required.
• A number of notable appellate judgments have addressed the necessity to balance the principles of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR with the imperatives of transparent justice: R v Marine A [2014] 1 WLR 3326; BBC v Roden [2015] IRLR 627; A v BBC [2015] AC 588; Re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2015] 1 Cr App R4; R v Marine A [2014] 1 WLR 3326; and BBC v Roden [2015] IRLR 627.
• In Guardian News & Media Ltd v R and Incedal, the practical difficulties that might emerge for judges when seeking to satisfy the demands of credentialed journalists during a trial while simultaneously preserving national security were highlighted. EWCA Crim 11 (EWCA Crim) (EWCA Crim) (EWCA Cri
• Nagla v Latvia (2013) ECHR 668; Tillack v Belgium (2012) 55 EHRR 25; Keena v Ireland (29804/10); and R (Miranda) v Home Secretary [2014] 1 WLR 3140 have all been updated to reflect recent thinking in judicial decisions such as Nagla v Latvia (2013) ECHR 668; Tillack v Belgium (2012) 55 EHRR 25; and R (Miranda) v Home Secretary [2014] 1 WLR However, the light shed on the idea of journalistic “sources” under the Investigatory Powers Act is also taken into account.
• “Protean” has been used to characterise the law of contempt. Difficulties might arise quickly and unexpectedly during any criminal or civil action. It is therefore helpful to have a text, as well as the applicable rules and precedents, in one book that seeks to cover the whole field – rather than being restricted to one area of the law or category of disputes.
• Lord Eassie has reworked and updated the Scottish chapter 16 for this edition, bringing many years of practical expertise and study to bear in that specialised subject.

TABLE OF CONTENTS of Arlidge, Eady & Smith On Contempt:

1. History of the law of contempt;
2. Contempt of Court: The constitutional dimensions;
3. Distinctions between criminal and civil contempt;
4. The statutory regime for strict liability;
5. Contempts by publication at common law;
6. Court orders affecting the media;
7. Court reporting I: Restrictions under the 1981 Act;
8. Court reporting II: Other statutory restrictions;
9. Protection of sources;
10. Contempt in the face of the Court;
11. Direct interference with the administration of justice;
12. Civil contempt;
13. Jurisdiction;
14. Sanctions and remedies;
15. Practice, procedure and public funding;
16. The law of contempt in Scotland.