Contempt in the Face of the Court in UK Law

Where the act which constitutes a contempt in the face of the court, or one closely akin to such a contempt, is not a crime, the deliberate breach of a court order of which he has notice will be sufficient. It is not necessary that the person additionally intended by his breach to interfere with the administration of justice, though for the reasons we have set out and which were considered in Dallas, it will generally readily be inferred that such an intention is established.

Before any court embarks on hearing a committal application, whether for a contempt in the face of the court or for breach of an order, it should ensure that the following matters are at the forefront of its mind:

Both Rooney and Balogh were cases of alleged criminal contempt, that is to say either contempt in the face of the court or conduct tending to interfere with a trial which is underway or just about to begin. There are two possible ways of dealing with criminal contempt: one by the exercise of the summary jurisdiction, the other by an application to a Divisional Court. Neither case has anything to say about civil contempt; that is to say breach of a court order carrying the contempt sanction.

As I have said, a Judge should act of his own motion only when it is urgent and imperative to act immediately. In all other cases he should not take it upon himself to move. He should leave it to the Attorney-General or to the party aggrieved to make a motion in accordance with the rules in Order 52. The reason is so that he should not appear to be both prosecutor and judge: for that is a role which does not become him well.

The phrase "contempt in the face of the Court" has a quaint old-fashioned ring about it; but the importance of it is this. The course of justice must not bedeflected or interfered with? Those who strike at it strike at the very foundations of our society. To maintain law and order, the Judges have, and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend against it. It is a great power – a power instantly to imprison a person without trial – but it is a necessary power.

The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our Courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented (Skipworth's case and The King v. Davies.) This power to commit for what is inappropriately called "contempt of Court" is sui generis and has from time immemorial reposed in the Judge for the protection of the public.

It has long been the case that that a judge may, but not must, deal with a contempt committed in the face of the court summarily, albeit after ensuring a fair hearing. So too may a judge deal summarily with a contempt which amounts to an interference in the course of the proceedings he or she is conducting. The power to punish such contempt arises under the common law in addition to statute.