Law Commission Proposes Overhaul of Contempt Laws

The Law Commission has published a consultation paper seeking to modernise the law on contempt of court, proposing a streamlined approach to replace the centuries-old distinctions between “criminal contempt” and “civil contempt.”

The Commission suggests categorizing contempt of court into three forms:

1.) General Contempt: This includes abusing court staff or witnesses, disrupting hearings, or making unauthorized recordings of proceedings. Such proceedings may be initiated by the court itself or by the Attorney General, who serves as the guardian of public interest in justice administration.

2.) Contempt by Breach of Court Order or Undertaking: This involves actions like defying a “freezing order” in high-value commercial disputes, violating injunctions to prevent protester disruption, or breaching terms of Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions (ASBIs). Proceedings can be initiated by the litigant, landowner, or local authority who obtained the respective orders, with the court's permission.

3.) Contempt by Publication When Proceedings Are Active: This concerns media reporting or social media posts that risk impeding or prejudicing justice in active proceedings, such as revealing inadmissible evidence that could influence a jury. Proceedings require the Attorney General's permission or can be commenced directly by the Attorney General.

Key Proposals for Reform

1.) Community Sentences: The Commission suggests expanding sentencing options beyond prison or fines to include community orders, which may involve unpaid work, drug or alcohol treatment, and specific restrictions, especially for vulnerable individuals breaching ASBIs.

2.) Imprisonment: While the maximum sentence for contempt remains two years, the Commission is seeking views on whether imprisonment should be excluded when freedom of expression is involved, particularly if the defendant did not intend to interfere with justice.

3.) Tribunals: Extending contempt powers to tribunals to address disruptive conduct and breaches of orders, ensuring proceedings are fair and effective.

4.) Criminal Records: Ensuring that a contempt finding does not appear on the Police National Computer or criminal records checks, as contempt is not a criminal offence, despite evidence of such occurrences.

Matters for Consultation

The Commission is seeking opinions on several matters, including:

• Whether criminal proceedings should be considered “active” from the point of arrest or only after a charge, which would affect media reporting during investigations.

• Whether the power to grant or withhold consent for contempt proceedings against politicians should remain with the Attorney General or be transferred to the courts.

• Whether courts should have the authority to review the Attorney General’s decisions on contempt proceedings related to active publications.

 How Can We Help?

 At Forbes Solicitors, we stay abreast of legislative and case law changes to provide the best possible advice. If you would like to discuss any aspect of your case, please contact Craig MacKenzie, Partner and head of our High-Profile & Private Crime Division.