CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS OF COURT
| Published date | 01 March 1962 |
| Date | 01 March 1962 |
| Author | Eliahu Harnon |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1962.tb02200.x |
CIVIL
AND
CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS
OF
COURT
INTRODUCTORY
WITH
the coming into force of the Administration of Justice Act,
1960,'
on
receiving the Royal Assent,l there have been considerable
amendments in the law of contempt of court
(inter
ah),
incorporating those reforms which were most generally urged.s
It
seems, however, that
an
essential classification problem-
untouched by the new Act-is perhaps worth commenting
on.
Among the various ways which have been suggested
of
classifying
contempt
of
court
the civil-criminal mode appears to be the
prevailing one.' The observations which follow deal with the
importance of the distinction and some of its effects.
I.
THE
IIUPOETOTCE
OF
TEE
DISTINCTION
The necessity of maintaining
a
clear-cut distinction between the
two
kinds of contempt
has
often been emphesised. The reason
behind it is mainly that the person against whom contempt pro-
ceedings have been commenced should not be left in doubt, but
be informed which
is
the contempt he is charged with, whether
civil or criminal, since it might result in signiflcant differences in
regard
to
the following matters:
(1)
rules
of appeal;
(2)
privilege
from arrest;
(8)
power to pardon;
(4)
punishment and execution;
(5)
rules of evidence and procedure;
(0)
settlement of the dispute;
(7)
discharge or release upon compliance.
It
is now proposed to consider how the civil-criminal
distinction manifests itself
in
these matters.
1.
Rules
of
Appeal
The new Act provides for the first time
a
general right of appeal
in cases
of
contempt of both civil and criminal, whereas
according to the former law there wm
no
appeal against
any
1
8
It
9
Eliz.
2,
c.
68.
a
On
October
97,
1960.
8
Mainly
in
regard
to
the queetion
of
a
ale
in contemptr
of
court
(nee
8.
19
of
the
new
Act) and the defence
oRme
dde publlcation
or
dirtribution
of
material which amounts to
a
contempt
(nee
e.
11
of
the Ad), miti atin
the severity
of
the law
as
laid down
in
R.
v.
Odharna
Pre88,
Ltd.
119677
1
Q.B.
73
and
R.
v.
Griflth
[1967]
2
Q.B.
1"
See
The Report
on
Contempt
of
Court
pre
ared
by
"
Justice
"
(tbs
Brffrrh
Section
of
the Inter-
national Commission
or
Juri$e),
1969
(hereinaftef
The Report
").
Newepaperr and Contem
t
of
Court in Englieh
Law"
(1996)
48
H.L.R.
686;
The Report
at
p.
4.
1-
aleo
the debate on
the Bill for
the
Administration
of
Juetice Act,
1880,
Hanrafd,
Vol.
222,
No.
do.
col.
abl.
4
e.g.,
Prof.
A.
L.
Goodhart,
6
e.
19.
179
To continue reading
Request your trial