Contempt of court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or
disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the
authority, justice and dignity of the court.[1][2] A similar attitude towards a legislative body is
termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress.
There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the
courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order.[3] Contempt proceedings are especially used to
enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions.[4] In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond
to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain information can
constitute contempt of the court.
When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue an order that in the
context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been
disrespectful of the court's authority, called "found" or "held" in contempt. That is the judge's
strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.
A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court,
showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication
of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.
A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court,
which makes contempt of court a process crime. Judges in common law systems usually have more
extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.

Contents

 1In use today

o 1.1Belgium
o 1.2Australia
o 1.3Canada
 1.3.1Common law offence
 1.3.2Canadian Federal courts
 1.3.3Tax Court of Canada
 1.3.4Provincial courts
o 1.4Hong Kong
o 1.5India
 1.5.1Punishment
o 1.6England and Wales
 1.6.1Criminal contempt
 1.6.2Strict liability contempt
 1.6.3Civil contempt
o 1.7Singapore
o 1.8United States
 1.8.1News media in the United States
 1.8.2Criticism
 2See also
 3Notes and references
 4Literature
 5External links

In use today[edit]
Contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functioning of
the court. The judge may impose fines and/or jail time upon any person committing contempt of
court. The person is usually let out upon his or her agreement to fulfill the wishes of the court.[5] Civil
contempt can involve acts of omission. The judge will make use of warnings in most situations that
may lead to a person being charged with contempt. It is relatively rare that a person is charged for
contempt without first receiving at least one warning from the judge.[6] Constructive contempt, also
called consequential contempt, is when a person fails to fulfill the will of the court as it applies to
outside obligations of the person. In most cases, constructive contempt is considered to be in the
realm of civil contempt due to its passive nature.
Indirect contempt is something that is associated with civil and constructive contempt and involves a
failure to follow court orders. Criminal contempt includes anything that could be called a disturbance,
such as repeatedly talking out of turn, bringing forth previously banned evidence, or harassment of
any other party in the courtroom.[5] Direct contempt is an unacceptable act in the presence of the
judge (in facie curiae), and generally begins with a warning, and may be accompanied by an
immediate imposition of punishment. Yawning in some cases can be considered contempt of court.[7]
Contempt of court has a significant impact on journalism in the form of restrictions on court reporting
which are set out in statute in the UK.[8][failed verification]
Belgium[edit]
A Belgian correctional or civil judge may immediately try the person for insulting the court.[9]
Australia[edit]
In Australia a judge may impose a fine or jail for contempt of court,[10] including for refusing to stand
up for a judge.[11]
Canada[edit]
Common law offence[edit]
In Canada, contempt of court is an exception to the general principle that all criminal offences are
set out in the federal Criminal Code. Contempt of court and contempt of Parliament are the only
remaining common law offences in Canada.[12]
Contempt of court includes the following behaviors:

 Failing to maintain a respectful attitude, failing to remain silent or failing to refrain from showing
approval or disapproval of the proceeding
 Refusing or neglecting to obey a subpoena
 Willfully disobeying a process or order of the court
 Interfering with the orderly administration of justice or impairing the authority or dignity of the
court
 An officer of the court failing to perform his or her duties
 A sheriff or bailiff not executing a writ of the court forthwith or not making a return thereof
Canadian Federal courts[edit]
This section applies only to Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court.
Under Federal Court Rules, Rules 466, and Rule 467 a person who is accused of Contempt needs
to be first served with a contempt order and then appear in court to answer the charges. Convictions
can only be made when proof beyond a reasonable doubt is achieved.[13]
If it is a matter of urgency or the contempt was done in front of a judge, that person can be punished
immediately. Punishment can range from the person being imprisoned for a period of less than five
years or until the person complies with the order or fine.
Tax Court of Canada[edit]
Under Tax Court of Canada Rules of Tax Court of Canada Act, a person who is found to be in
contempt may be imprisoned for a period of less than two years or fined. Similar procedures for
serving an order first is also used at the Tax Court.
Provincial courts[edit]
Different procedures exist for different provincial courts. For example, in British Columbia, a justice
of the peace can only issue a summons to an offender for contempt, which will be dealt with by a
judge, even if the offence was done in the face of the justice.[14]
Hong Kong[edit]
Judges from the Court of Final Appeal, High Court, District Court along with members from the
various tribunals and Coroner's Court all have the power to impose immediate punishments for
contempt in the face of the court, derived from legislation or through common law:

 Insult a judge or justice, witness or officers of the court

 Interrupts the proceedings of the court
 Interfere with the course of justice
 Misbehaves in court (e.g., use of mobile phone or recording devices without permission)
 Juror who leaves without permission of the court during proceedings
 Disobeying a judgment or court order
 Breach of undertaking
 Breach of a duty imposed upon a solicitor by rules of court
The use of insulting or threatening language in the magistrates' courts or against a magistrate is in
breach of section 99 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227) which states the magistrate can
'summarily sentence the offender to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 6 months.'
In addition, certain appeal boards are given the statutory authority for contempt by them (e.g.,
Residential Care Home, Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation, Air Pollution Control, etc.). For
contempt in front of these boards, the chairperson will certify the act of contempt to the Court of First
Instance who will then proceed with a hearing and determine the punishment.
India[edit]
In India contempt of court is of two types:

1. Civil contempt: Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, civil contempt has
been defined as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
2. Criminal contempt: Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal
contempt has been defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act
whatsoever which:
i. Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court, or
 ii. Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceeding, or
iii. Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner.
Punishment[edit]
Six months, or fine up to ₹2000, or both.[clarification needed]
England and Wales[edit]
In England and Wales (a common law jurisdiction), the law on contempt is partly set out in case law
(common law), and partly codified by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Contempt may be classified
as criminal or civil. The maximum penalty for criminal contempt under the 1981 Act is committal to
prison for two years.
Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge or magistrates while holding the
court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding, may be prosecuted as
"direct" contempt. The term "direct" means that the court itself cites the person in contempt by
describing the behavior observed on the record. Direct contempt is distinctly different from indirect
contempt, wherein another individual may file papers alleging contempt against a person who has
willfully violated a lawful court order.
Criminal contempt[edit]
The Crown Court is a superior court according to the Senior Courts Act 1981, and Crown Courts
have the power to punish contempt. The Divisional Court as part of the High Court has ruled that this
power can apply in these three circumstances:

1. Contempt "in the face of the court" (not to be taken literally; the judge does not need to see
it, provided it took place within the court precincts or relates to a case currently before that
court);
2. Disobedience of a court order; and
3. Breaches of undertakings to the court.
Where it is necessary to act quickly, a judge may act to impose committal (to prison) for contempt.
Where it is not necessary to be so urgent, or where indirect contempt has taken place the Attorney
General can intervene and the Crown Prosecution Service will institute criminal proceedings on his
behalf before a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of
England and Wales.
Magistrates' courts also have powers under the 1981 Act to order to detain any person who "insults
the court" or otherwise disrupts its proceedings until the end of the sitting. Upon contempt being
admitted or proved the (invariably) District Judge (sitting as a magistrate) may order committal to
prison for a maximum of one month, impose a fine of up to £2,500, or both.
It will be contempt to bring an audio recording device or picture-taking device of any sort into an
English court without the consent of the court.[15]
It will not be contempt according to section 10 of the Act for a journalist to refuse to disclose his
sources, unless the court has considered the evidence available and determined that the information
is "necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime".
Strict liability contempt[edit]
Under the Contempt of Court Act it is criminal contempt to publish anything which creates a real risk
that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where
proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this
to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media
from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial or
linked trials are over and the juries have given their verdicts.
Section 2 of the Act defines and limits the previous common law definition of contempt (which was
previously based upon a presumption that any conduct could be treated as contempt, regardless of
intent), to only instances where there can be proved an intent to cause a substantial risk of serious
prejudice to the administration of justice (i.e./e.g., the conduct of a trial).
Civil contempt[edit]
In civil proceedings there are two main ways in which contempt is committed:

1. Failure to attend at court despite a summons requiring attendance. In respect of the High
Court, historically a writ of latitat would have been issued, but now a bench warrant is
issued, authorizing the tipstaff to arrange for the arrest of the individual, and imprisonment
until the date and time the court appoints to next sit. In practice a groveling letter of apology
to the court is sufficient to ward off this possibility, and in any event the warrant is generally
"backed for bail"—i.e., bail will be granted once the arrest has been made and a location
where the person can be found in future established.[citation needed]
2. Failure to comply with a court order. A copy of the order, with a "penal notice"—i.e., notice
informing the recipient that if they do not comply they are subject to imprisonment—is
served on the person concerned. If, after that, they breach the order, proceedings can be
started and in theory the person involved can be sent to prison. In practice this rarely
happens as the cost on the claimant of bringing these proceedings is significant and in
practice imprisonment is rarely ordered as an apology or fine are usually considered
appropriate.
Singapore[edit]
Main article: Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore
United States[edit]
In United States jurisprudence, acts of contempt are generally divided into direct or indirect and civil
or criminal. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of a judge; civil contempt is "coercive and
remedial" as opposed to punitive. In the United States, relevant statutes include 18 U.S.C. §§ 401–
403 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42.[16]

1. Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae)
and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has
acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice.
After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction
immediately.
2. Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of
disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt
by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is
entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt
and, since there is no written procedure, may or may not be allowed to present evidence in
rebuttal.
Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, with the party
benefiting from the order also holding responsibility for the enforcement of the order. However, some
cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to
a lesser degree, the judge or the court.
Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the
contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then
punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The
civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar
court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues:
once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to
"hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. In federal and
most state courts, the burden of proof for civil contempt is clear and convincing evidence, a lower
standard than in criminal cases.[17]
In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002),
a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for
his failure to produce US$2.5 million as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been
imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state
court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.
Civil contempt is only appropriate when the imposed party has the power to comply with the
underlying order.[18] Controversial contempt rulings have periodically arisen from cases
involving asset protection trusts, where the court has ordered a settlor of an asset protection trust to
repatriate assets so that the assets may be made available to a creditor.[19] A court cannot maintain
an order of contempt where the imposed party does not have the ability to comply with the
underlying order. This claim when made by the imposed party is known as the "impossibility
defense".[20]
Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, and "the requirement of a jury does not
apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or
command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the
United States.'" This stance is not universally agreed with by other areas of the legal world, and
there have been many calls to have contempt cases to be tried by jury, rather than by judge, as a
potential conflict of interest rising from a judge both accusing and sentencing the defendant. At least
one Supreme Court Justice has made calls for jury trials to replace judge trials on contempt cases.[21]
The United States Marshals Service is the agency component that first holds all federal prisoners. It
uses the Prisoner Population Management System /Prisoner Tracking System. The only types of
records that are disclosed as being in the system are those of "federal prisoners who are in custody
pending criminal proceedings." The records of "alleged civil contempors" are not listed in the Federal
Register as being in the system leading to a potential claim for damages under The Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(I).[22]
News media in the United States[edit]
In the United States, because of the broad protections granted by the First Amendment, with
extremely limited exceptions, unless the media outlet is a party to the case, a media outlet cannot be
found in contempt of court for reporting about a case because a court cannot order the media in
general not to report on a case or forbid it from reporting facts discovered publicly.[23] Newspapers
cannot be closed because of their content.[24]
Criticism[edit]
There have been criticisms over the practice of trying contempt from the bench. In
particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a dissent, "It is high time, in my judgment, to
wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try
criminal contempt cases without a jury."[21]

See also[edit]
 Law portal

 Contempt of cop
 Contumacy
 Judicial discretion
 Perjury
 Perverting the course of justice
 Obstruction of justice
 Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore

Notes and references[edit]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Contempt of court" –
news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2010) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)