Committal Proceedings in UK Law

Taking all these considerations into account, I consider that the balance comes down in favour of ordering disclosure by Clydes of all the contact details (past and present) which they hold for Mr Shalabayev. It is in the highest degree unsatisfactory that he can still be at large, as a fugitive from justice, while he has solicitors on the record acting for him, and intervening in legal proceedings as and when it suits his purposes.

The concept that the disproportionate pursuit of pointless litigation is an abuse takes on added force in connection with committal applications.

Committal proceedings are an appropriate way, albeit as a last resort, of seeking to obtain the compliance by a party with the court's order (including undertakings contained in orders), and they are also an appropriate means of bringing to the court's attention serious rather than technical, still less involuntary, breaches of them.

If justices have been of the opinion on admissible evidence that there is sufficient to put the accused on trial, I suggest that normally on a judicial review application a court will rightly be slow to interfere at that stage. If justices have been of the opinion on admissible evidence that there is sufficient to put the accused on trial, I suggest that normally on a judicial review application a court will rightly be slow to interfere at that stage.

So the test is, does the notice give the person alleged to be in contempt enough information to enable him to meet the charge? That information is required to be available to the respondent to the application from within the four corners of the notice itself. From the notice itself the person alleged to be in contempt should know with sufficient particularity what are the breaches alleged.

I find it difficult to think that there are any circumstances in which one whose committal is sought for a breach of an order of the Court in civil proceedings could be compelled by the party seeking committal to give evidence against his will. Where, however, the person whose committal is sought in civil contempt proceedings has voluntarily given evidence, I see no reason why he should be entitled, as of right, to decline to be cross-examined.

Section 9(2) and paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 require that extradition proceedings should be conducted "as nearly as may be" as if they were committal proceedings before magistrates. Committal proceedings are of course criminal proceedings and these provisions would make little sense if the metropolitan magistrate could not apply the normal rules of criminal evidence and procedure.