Laughing Gas in UK Law

During the trial he took a half-cylinder of it from the hospital car park. His plan was to put the cylinder at the inlet to the ventilating system and to release the gas into the Court. It would emerge from the outlets which were just in front of Counsel's row. So one night when it was dark he got on to the roof of the Court House. He found the ventilating ducts and decided where to put the cylinder.

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.

When this case was opened, it occurred to each one of us: Was Mr. Balogh guilty of the offence of contempt of Court? He was undoubtedly guilty of stealing the cylinder of gas, but was he guilty of contempt of Court? Even if he haddone all this, it is very doubtful whether it would have had any effect at all. The gas would have been so diluted by air that it would not have been noticeable.

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.

In our judgment, it is necessary to distinguish between jurisdiction and good practice. Although the summary procedure is a Draconian step which should never be embarked upon lightly, it is not limited to cases where it is necessary to preserve the integrity of a trial which is in progress or about to begin (the observations in Director of Public Prosecutions v Channel Four Televisions Co Ltd [1993] 2 All ER 517, at p 521a —c, were not intended to cover all eventualities).

In many cases where there has perforce to be a delay between the alleged contempt and the summary trial, it will be wise for the judge to refer the matter to one of her colleagues if for no other reason than to avoid the risk that this argument will be run.

In my opinion the first is that it should have been created by the State. At one time courts were created or recognised by the Monarch. Thus while an arbitration tribunal may contain many of the attributes of a court, it will lack this first essential one. Secondly, it must conduct its procedure in accordance with the rules of natural justice.