R v Huggins (Raffael)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Moses |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Crim 732 |
| Date | 18 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No: 200603267/B3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
[2007] EWCA Crim 732
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Moses
Mr Justice Nelson
Sir Charles Mantell
No: 200603267/B3
MR A SELBY appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
MR J HARRIS appeared on behalf of the CROWN
This is an appeal, as of right, pursuant to section 13(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 against a finding of contempt. That finding was made as a result of what the judge believed was a contempt in the face of the court on 13th June 2006 at Croydon Crown Court. The matter took nine days to find its way to this court, and on 22nd June 2006 this court reduced the sentence of 28 days passed by the judge to one of seven days, but was unable to deal with the finding of contempt because the prosecution was not represented. This was unfortunate for two reasons. Firstly, the appeal should have been advanced much more speedily, and this is not the occasion to examine why there was that delay, and, secondly, it means that this court has already reached a conclusion as to the sentence by reducing it from 28 days to seven days. But in reaching that conclusion the court previously, on 22nd June, was careful not to reach any conclusion as to the propriety of the finding of contempt for the reasons it gave. Moreover, there is no particular significance in the order of seven days, by which the sentence was reduced, since by that time this appellant had already served nine days and it is plain from the words this court used that its intention was to ensure his immediate release.
The history of the powers of a court summarily to commit a person for contempt in the face of the court was dealt with in full by Lawton LJ in Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73 at page 92. It would be unwise to attempt to repeat that exegesis.
The Crown Court is a superior court of record—see, as it now is but will no longer remain, section 45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It, therefore, has power to deal summarily with a contempt in the face of the court. It is a power conferred so that the court may protect the criminal justice process and all those who participate in it: witnesses, advocates, victims, defendants, and, particularly, the jury. Since that is the purpose for which the power is conferred that summary power must only be exercised where it is necessary to do so to achieve that objective. It must only be exercised where the contempt is clearly proved and where nothing else will do to protect the ends of justice: see R v Tamworth Justices ex parte Walsh [1994] COD 277.
Judges must, even though they are from time to time compelled to act immediately, on the spur of the moment, to protect the court from any further damage, bear that principle in mind. But we do acknowledge that there will be occasions where it is necessary to act immediately to protect the court processes. Further, such protection may require an element of deterrence. Though often that will be a somewhat idle element since those who misbehave in the face of the court are often driven to do so when suddenly overwhelmed by emotion. Frequently the best means of protecting the court is by the quiet authority exercised by the judge.
In order to act consistently with the principle that immediate committal to prison is a measure of last resort judges must also have in mind the procedural principles identified by Lawton LJ in Moran 81 Cr App R 51, particularly the principles that: firstly, the decision to imprison a person for contempt should never be taken too quickly, there should always be time for reflection as to what is the best course to take; and, secondly, that the judge should consider whether that time for reflection should extend over night. In the instant case that did not happen.
The jury had been considering a case of importing cocaine. The appellant is 19. He had, as it appears, only recently arrived at court because for some reason he had not learned that his mother was on trial. Having just arrived, he was there to hear her convicted of that serious offence and was in the public gallery when she was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.
The transcript shows, and the judge found, that on that sentence being passed, the appellant shouted out:
“To kill your child, yeah, and you wouldn't do? Threatened to kill your family and you wouldn't do it? I think anyone—”
The judge then intervened by which time the appellant had fled from the court.
The judge then ordered the detention of the appellant. He was detained. The judge then invited counsel for the appellant's mother to take instructions. It is plain from the judge's finding that he was concerned as to the manner in which those words were shouted and the gesture to the jury with which those words were accompanied.
What he said was:
“It is very frightening for jurors when this sort of thing happens. I am going to remand him in custody …”
Then he said to Mr Selby:
“… take some instructions. At the very least I shall expect an apology from him and I am not saying that I won't find some way of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pegawai Pengurus Pilihanraya Dewan Undangan Negeri Bagi Pilihan Raya DUN N.27, Amino Agos bin Suyub v Dr Streram a/l Sinnasamy & 2 Ors
-
Hammerton v Hammerton
...McKenzie friend), Re[2005] EWCA Civ 759, [2005] 2 FCR 563, [2006] Fam 1, [2005] 3 WLR 1191, [2005] 2 FLR 967. R v Huggins [2007] EWCA Crim 732, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 107. R v Moran (1985) 81 Cr App Rep 51, CA. R v Mushtaq[2005] UKHL 25, [2005] 3 All ER 885, [2005] 1 WLR 1513. Saunders v UK (1......
-
R v John Jordan
...at para 28–86, Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114, R v Hill [1986] Crim LR 457, R v McDaniel (Cliff) (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 44, R v Huggins (Raffael) [2007] EWCA Crim 732, and Re Yaxley-Lennon (Practice Note) [2018] EWCA Crim 1856, [2018] 1 WLR 5406 [27]. 25 It is well-established tha......
-
R v Bobby Atkinson and Another
...repeating things which were said fairly recently on 18th January 2007, in this court, by Moses LJ, in the case of R v Raffael Huggins [2007] EWCA Crim 732. We read one or two paragraphs from that judgment to illustrate the proper approach to matters of this kind: 31 "3. The Crown Court is a......
-
Advising Noah: A Legal Analysis of Assisted Migration
...this Article. Any errors or omissions are our own.] 1. Carl Zimmer, A Radical Step to Preserve a Species: Assisted Migration , N.Y. Times, Jan. 23, 2007, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/ science/23migrate.html. 2. Bob Holmes, Assisted Migration: Helping Nature to Relocate , N......
-
Department Stores on Sale: an Antitrust Quandary
...in the Quarter, N.Y. TIMES, May 25, 2007, at C2. 232. Michael Barbara & Andrew Ross Sorkin, Under Fire, Gap Chief Steps Down, N.Y. times, Jan. 23, 2007, at CI; Michael Barbara & Andrew Ross Sorkin, Gap Is Said to Explore Selling Itself, N.Y. Times, Jan. 9,2007, at CI. 233. Rachel Dodes, Sty......
-
Establishing an aggressive legal framework for the future of wind energy in Europe.
...position_paper_FINAL_VERSION.pdf. (7.) Id. (8.) James Kanter, Europe Encouraging Clean Energy Industry, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 23, 2007, at (9.) Mortensen, supra note 4, at 181, available at http://www.gwec.net/ uploads/media/06-02_PR_Global_Statistics_2005.pdf (citing Press Release, Global Wind ......
-
William W. Buzbee, Interaction's Promise: Preemption Policy Shifts, Risk Regulation, and Experimentalism Lessons
...ongoing legislative proposals seeking to impose stringent regulation on chemical facility risks. Editorial, Chemical Insecurity, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 23, 2007, at A18. The editorial asserted that these regulations sought to use a law lacking a preemption provision to protect "absurdly weak" fed......