Is it contempt in facie curiae?

Tom Young

35 well wishers at the sentencing of a person for a crime. To me their actions are contemptuous, particularly if the Court remained sitting.

Perhaps I am wrong, but my own sentiment is that it shows no respect for the Court, the Law or the victim in the case. All 35 should have been arrested and jailed, until such time as their contempt be purged.

We all hear of contrary acts in Courts, but in this instance, I'd have supported the most harsh consequences for this type of behaviour.

What do you think?

Tom

Tom Young

Section [9] of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) [Act,] 1851 requires that the insult to the Justice be ‘wilful’.

French v French 1 Hogan 138 (1824), per McMahon MR:

[A] tribunal administering laws, without authority to protect its proceedings from outrage or disturbance, presents to the mind the idea of an institution, which must be impotent, dependent and frequently useless.

In Re Rea (No. 2) (1879) 4 LR (Ir) 345, per May CJ:

It is plain that no tribunal could be maintained with order and decency unless the presiding Judge had the power of dealing with the suppressing of contempts committed in open Court. It is for the sake of the administration of justice, and in order to maintain the decency and order of judicial proceedings, that this extensive and summary power is confided to a Judge.

Morris v. The Crown Court [1970] 1 All ER 1079, per Lord Denning MR:

The phrase ‘contempt in the face of the court’ has a quaint old-fashioned ring about it; but the importance of it is this: of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in these courts. The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it strike at the very foundations of our society. To maintain law and order, the judges have, and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend against it. It is a great power – a power instantly to imprison a person without trial – but it is a necessary power Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show – and to show to all students everywhere – that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land – and I speak both for England and Wales – they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down.

The People (AG) v Jasinski (1963) Frewen 283, per Haugh J:

‘[T]he trial Judge, who was in control of the entire proceedings, was, by reason of the open contempt persisted in by this applicant, entitled, in the interests of justice, to act as he did.’

Mitchell v. Smyth [1894] 2 IR 351

Ex parte Tanner MP Judgements of the Superior Courts (Ireland) 343 (Exch. Div., 1889)

Maximilian

Tom Young wrote: »

35 well wishers at the sentencing of a person for a crime. To me their actions are contemptuous, particularly if the Court remained sitting.

Perhaps I am wrong, but my own sentiment is that it shows no respect for the Court, the Law or the victim in the case. All 35 should have been arrested and jailed, until such time as their contempt be purged.

We all hear of contrary acts in Courts, but in this instance, I'd have supported the most harsh consequences for this type of behaviour.

What do you think?

Tom

As distasteful as it was in this case, I think people should have the right to criticise judgements however they please. It wouldn't be very democratic if people could be thrown in prison for protesting like that.

Manach

I seem to vaguely remember that once sentencing is completed, then it is no longer a matter for the courts system, the jurisdiction is the state's?

Victor

AFAIK this was before the sentencing hearing.

But didn't this happen before the sitting, with the judge not present. I had similar thoughts to Tom, but decided that it wasn't contempt if the judge wasn't present. I'm not sure if that is true.

Are there precedents for contempt when the judge isn't present?

Maximilian wrote: »

I think people should have the right to criticise judgements however they please.

Sure, but outside the courtroom and within the law.

If everyone in the town knows who the victim is, is someone in contempt.

Maximilian

Victor wrote: »

Sure, but outside the courtroom and within the law.

I didn't mean flying planes into the Four Courts

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

35 well wishers at the sentencing of a person for a crime. To me their actions are contemptuous, particularly if the Court remained sitting.

I would imagine like other posters that until the judge is sitting at the bench, the courtroom is just a room like any other.

Tom Young wrote: »

We all hear of contrary acts in Courts, but in this instance, I'd have supported the most harsh consequences for this type of behaviour.

I don't know the facts and I am loath to believe much I read in papers (because anything I have first hand knowledge of appears to be either reported wrong or with a particular slant). But 35 people is a lot of people to be unreasonable without any justification. But I think people can protest anyway they choose once within the confines of the law.

Reloc8

In this case there was no contempt of court, of any variety.

Kanye

Reloc8 wrote: »

In this case there was no contempt of court, of any variety.

That's more than just slightly perfunctory.

I've been saying for years that this forum is not for off-the-cuff, nonchalant and or unsupported generalisations. Unless the policy has changed in my absence, I doubt your comment could be met with anything but scepticism.

The way I see it is that the "well-wishers" were probably unaware that their actions could or would be perceived as unlawful. I know ignorance is not a defence, but it would be wholly antediluvian to impose such a staunch interpretation in the within circumstances.

CapedCrusader

Hi all,

Am I missing something here?

How can 50 "middle aged and elderly" men queue up to shake his hand.

Either they:

a) believed his explanation meaning that they are all incredibly stupid and condone his language and attitude towards women or

b) have unquestioningly turned a blind eye to the facts and are supporting a "lad" against a woman just for the sake of it

Either way, it shows the backwardness of this country.. parts of it at least.

I just can't believe this has happened in modern day Ireland.

Reloc8

Kanye wrote: »

That's more than just slightly perfunctory.

I've been saying for years that this forum is not for off-the-cuff, nonchalant and or unsupported generalisations. Unless the policy has changed in my absence, I doubt your comment could be met with anything but scepticism.

The way I see it is that the "well-wishers" were probably unaware that their actions could or would be perceived as unlawful. I know ignorance is not a defence, but it would be wholly antediluvian to impose such a staunch interpretation in the within circumstances.

There was nothing off-the-cuff or nonchalant about my comment. If it was perfunctory it was because despite its brevity it was accurate.

I am very, very reluctant to be seen to respond to your the comment (43 words of which are a comment on the opinion I posted and the remaining 45 of which are discussed below). But anyway.

Keegan v de Burca (1973) 1 IR 227 (Supreme Court) :

"The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is not new law. Criminal contempt consists in behaviour calculated to prejudice the due course of justice, such as contempt in facie curiae , words written or spoken or acts calculated to prejudice the due course of justice or disobedience to a writ of habeas corpus by the person to whom it is directed — to give but some examples of this class of contempt."

So the first point to take from that is that contempt in facie curia is to be distinguished from "words written or spoken or acts calculated to prejudice the due course of justice, or disobedience to a writ of habeas corpus".

It is not possible to argue that the actions of the croud of people in this case constituted contempt in facie curia. They were not in the face of the court. It couldn't arise.

Clearly disobedience to a writ of habeas corpus does not arise, nor does 'words written'.

One is left with : 'acts calculated to prejudice the due course of justice'.

First point : 'calculated' requires an intent either specific or at least intent in the sense that one's actions had natural and forseeable consequences. In this instance, intent to prejudice the due course of justice is required.

Second point : sympathising with a convicted person prior to sentence is not conduct which could reasonably be taken in and of itself as being intended to prejudice the due course of justice, if one considers the due course of justice in this particular case to be the holding of a sentencing hearing, presumably without disruption, as happened (subject to some emotional reaction from one family member present in court). I suppose a demonstration of a more energetic, loud, noisy type outside court could come within this category. But so what.

All of this is applicable before one engages the constitutional right to freedom of expression, which has to be allowed some space in situations like this. The balancing act would require a very definite proof of intent to disrupt the course of justice and likely no other lawful purpose, or any lawful purpose to be completely secondary to the intent to disrupt the course of justice.

Kanye wrote: »

The way I see it is that the "well-wishers" were probably unaware that their actions could or would be perceived as unlawful. I know ignorance is not a defence, but it would be wholly antediluvian to impose such a staunch interpretation in the within circumstances

Would you mind explaining what exactly you are on about ?

Is the 'staunch interpretation' which you resist something to do with ignorance not being a defence (a well worn, general and often inaccurate truism) ? If so I can't make sense of your statement because you are then saying that the well wishers did not mean to offend (note above comments re intent required) but ignorance is no defence, but you are resisting some undescribed 'staunch interpretation' as being 'antediluvian'. In any event in the absence of intent as described above, none of that matters.

Or (perhaps more likely) is the 'staunch interpretation' which you resist my statement that there was nothing capable of being considered contempt in the face of the court or otherwise here ? If so a) it was not an interpretation but an opinion on the state of the law and b) it doesn't matter how antediluvian the application of the law as described by me would be - that's just what the law is.

Or perhaps you are addressing (sort of) the question of whether the conduct described should be considered a contempt of court. That's an interesting discussion which has nothing to do with the question posed in this thread.

Or perhaps you just like the word antediluvian ( made, evolved, or developed a long time ago <an antediluvian automobile> b : extremely primitive or outmoded <an antediluvian prejudice.)

The principles governing contempt of court are certainly made, evolved and developed a long time ago. As to whether they are extremely primitive or outmoded is a matter of your own personal opinion...but they are what they are.

Kanye wrote: »

That's more than just slightly perfunctory.

I've been saying for years that this forum is not for off-the-cuff, nonchalant and or unsupported generalisations. Unless the policy has changed in my absence, I doubt your comment could be met with anything but scepticism.

In closing, I don't particularly care what you have been saying for years. This means to me 'in my day [insert complaint]'. Secondly I don't particularly care that you consider my comment to be likely to be met with scepticism. I don't see why that is so, at least amongst people who actually know what contempt in the face of the court in fact is; it seems to me that you may not, subject to your further explanation of what you are trying to get at, that is.

Jo King

Usually where there is contempt in the face of the court the presiding judge warns the perpetrators to stop whatever they are doing. If they continue the judge can then direct that they be arrested. There is an argument that the conduct amounts to a section 6 Public Order offence. I have seen people before the courts for lesser activities.

sparkling sea

Judge was not present, court not in session, no contempt, just lack of guidence which in this case is needed