Contempt of Court - what is the penalty

Hannaho

Hi!

My cousin complained to his local T.D. about the behaviour/decision of a judge in a family law case - it's down the country. His solicitor/barrister expressed complete shock at the judge's decision/behaviour - so it's not just my cousin being on his high horse! I am concerned that my cousin took this action - I think he wants his T.D. to ask a question about in camera rule in Dail - as I understand it, he feels it leaves the family courts open to arbitrary decisions and no scrutiny. I am concerned though as I thought his actions would be contempt of court. Am I right, and if it's found out - what are the penalties for this - I would hate him to get into any more hassle?

Thanks.

LowKeyReturn

Your cousin and Alan Shatter. The same question has been asked by many so I wouldn't worry about it. I can remember the exact provision but noting in the contempt rules operates to stop genuine criticism of the courts. It's only where people start bandying around nonsense that issues might arise.

Hannaho

Hi! Lowkeyreturn, it's good to know that he is not going to get into too much trouble re contempt of court - the decision of the judge was truly appalling and against all advice from the psychologist and the guardian ad litem. I hope the in camera rule is watered down through the Courts Bill - though this Bill will probably take ages to get through the Houses.

Thanks.

234

There is an offence of scandalising the court. It differs from contempt in that you are not refusing to comply with an order, but rather you call the legitimacy/impartiality/authority of the court into question.

I read a case about it years ago but would have no idea where to find it now.

Pat Mustard

Bear the in camera rule in mind, as it is a family law case.

Nothing discussed in court, including the outcome of the case can be published. If anything is published or broadcast the person responsible is guilty of an offence. An exception to this is contained in the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004.

Victor

The Mustard wrote: »

Bear the in camera rule in mind, as it is a family law case.

Isn't communication to a member of the Oireachtas protected speech?

Pat Mustard

Victor wrote: »

Isn't communication to a member of the Orieachtas protected speech?

Do you mean Dáil privilege, where a TD/Senator can speak in the Dáil/Seanad without being sued for defamation?

Victor

The Mustard wrote: »

Do you mean Dáil privilege, where a TD/Senator can speak in the Dáil/Seanad without being sued for defamation?

Not quite the same thing.

More that it isn't very useful if a TD has such privilege if material can't be communicated to them.

Pat Mustard

Victor wrote: »

Not quite the same thing.

More that it isn't very useful if a TD has such privilege if material can't be communicated to them.

I agree, it is not the same thing.

Here is Article 15.12 of the Constitution:

12. All official reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof and utterances made in either House wherever published shall be privileged.

There is no mention of an exception to the in camera rule for people who speak to members the Oireachtas.

Hannaho

Hi! All, thanks for your replies. It made interesting reading for my cousin, though he has no regrets about talking to his local T.D. re what happened. I hope he doesn't land himself in hot water - he keeps reminding me of the recent family law case that Enda Kenny wrote to Alan Shatter about - but I reminded him that often the wealthy can pull strings so they do not get into trouble - that is how life is. I have been down the road of family law and court and know the pressure he is under, but at the same time, I don't want him to do anything stupid, or anything that will adversely affect his case. However, at the end of the day I do feel as if this in camera rule, with no scrutiny and seemingly arbitrary decision made I have had friends go through this process also, and I work in an area where I here these stories from time to time - I feel like the family courts seem to be some sort of kangaroo court - maybe that's just my impression. It's amazing that the in camera rule has not been challenged before now, but I suppose the in camera rule makes any sort of challenge difficult anyway. Thanks again for the comments/advice.

biddybops

In my experience you are wasting your time trying to fight the 'star chamber' that purports to be in the interest of the family.
I may be wrong, but I think any barrister or solicitor who is negligent will not be held accountable in family law, rules could have changed on the last few years, I'm not sure.
The 'in camera' rule is not there for the protection of the family, it's there to protect the state.

Pat Mustard

Not this again.

LowKeyReturn

biddybops wrote: »

In my experience you are wasting your time trying to fight the 'star chamber' that purports to be in the interest of the family.
I may be wrong, but I think any barrister or solicitor who is negligent will not be held accountable in family law, rules could have changed on the last few years, I'm not sure.
The 'in camera' rule is not there for the protection of the family, it's there to protect the state.

How is the non-censure of negligent legal counsel a protection of the state? A barrister or solicitor is no more part of the government that a plumber or dentist.

The 'in camera' rule is there to stop any Tom, Dick, Law or Journalism student rocking up and sitting in when sensitive, private matters are discussed. That said there are criticisms of the rule and as part of the reforms to the court system it's being looked at.