Laughing Gas in UK Law

During the trial he took a half-cylinder of it from the hospital car park. He was waiting for a moment when he could slip up to the roof without anyone seeing him. The officers of the Court had watched him go up to the roof. They kept him in custody and reported the matter to Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson, who was presiding in No. 1 Court (not the pornography Court). At the end of the day's hearing, at 4.15 p.m., the Judge had Balogh brought before him.

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? Were not his acts merely preparatory acts falling short of an attempt? But he is not guilty of attempting to break into the house. He had the criminal intent to break in, but that is not enough. So here Mr. Balogh had the criminal intent to disrupt the Court, but that is not enough.

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. Thirdly, that procedure will involve a public hearing with the power at least to receive evidence orally, to permit the oral examination and cross-examination of witnesses and to hear argument upon the issues before it. Fifthly, there will be two parties at least before it, one of whom may be the Crown, who are interested in the decision.