The Law Commission
(UK), a statutory independent body created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 (UK),
in their consultation paper on contempt of court, published in November 2012,
states as follows:
“Contempt of
court” covers a wide variety of conduct which undermines or has the potential
to undermine the course of justice, and the procedures which are designed to
deal with them. The law governing contempt of court is vast.
According
to TheFreeDictionary http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contempt+of+Court
(1 August 2013):
An act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for
the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or
legislative body. Individuals may be cited for contempt when they disobey an
order, fail to comply with a request, tamper with documents, withhold evidence,
interrupt proceedings through their actions or words, or otherwise defy a
public authority or hold it up to ridicule and disrespect. Contempt of court is
behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the
court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers
or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert
themselves in a case, such as protesters outside a courtroom. Courts have great
leeway in making contempt charges, and thus confusion sometimes exists about
the distinctions between types of contempt. Generally, however, contempt
proceedings are categorized as civil or criminal, and direct or indirect.
Giggling
teen flips judge the bird, judge not amused
By Mike Krumboltz
Never mess with people who have the power to make
your life miserable. That includes DMV employees, waiters and baggage handlers.
And judges. Especially them.
A Miami woman facing drug charges made her
situation much worse when she laughed at and then flipped off the man with the
gavel. File this case under: Ill advised.
According to NBC Miami, 18-year-old Penelope Soto
was in court for charges relating to possession of Xanax, a prescription drug.
Judge Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat was in the process of setting her bond. He asked
Soto about the value of her jewelry. Soto laughed. That was strike one.
"It's not a joke, you know, we're not in a
club now," Rodriguez-Chomat said. "We are not in a club. Be serious
about it."
Soto replied: "I'm serious about it, you just
made me laugh. You just made me laugh, I apologize. It's worth a lot of
money."
The judge said, "Like what?" Soto
compared the jewelry to a wealthy rapper. She replied that the jewelry is
"like Rick Ross. It's worth money."
The perplexed judge asked if Soto had taken drugs
within the past 24 hours, to which she answer, "Actually, no." The
judge then set Soto's bond at $5,000 and said, "Bye-bye." Soto
chuckled and said, "Adios." Strike two. The judge summoned her back
and raised the bond to $10,000, eliciting gasps from those in the courtroom.
Soto asked if the judge was serious. Judges are not
known for their humor, and Rodriguez-Chomat is no exception. "I am
serious," he said. "Adios."
But Soto wasn't done. Instead of leaving the
courtroom she flipped Rodriguez-Chomat the bird and said "F*** you."
And that was strike three. Soto was again called back and then sentenced to
thirty days in the big house for contempt of court.
Jurors jailed for contempt of court over internet use
Attorney
General Dominic Grieve: "Ignoring the judge's instructions is unacceptable
behaviour"
Two jurors
have each been jailed for two months for contempt of court after one posted a
comment on Facebook and the other researched a case online.
Kasim Davey,
21, of London, wrote a strongly-worded Facebook message during the trial of a
man for sex offences.
The High Court ruled he and Joseph Beard, 29, who was
a juror on a separate fraud trial, "interfered with the administration of
justice".
There have
been two previous similar prosecutions of jurors.
After the
attorney general was given permission to bring the cases earlier this year,
Davey and Beard were summoned to the High Court where two judges heard the
evidence against them before deciding whether they were guilty.
Strong
language
Davey, from
Palmers Green, north London, said he had sent the Facebook message last
December as a result of "spontaneous surprise at the kind of case I was
on".
His posting
- containing strong language and an offensive word - suggested he was going to
find the defendant guilty, said BBC News home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw.
Davey's
Facebook post: read: "Woooow I wasn't expecting to be in a jury Deciding a
paedophile's fate, I've always wanted to Fuck up a paedophile & now I'm
within the law!"
The judge at
Wood Green Crown Court was alerted and Davey was discharged. The defendant,
Adam Kephalas, was eventually found guilty of sexual activity with a child.
Davey told
the High Court he was unaware he had been in breach of a formal order made by
the crown court judge. He accepted he was not meant to discuss the case but
believed he was only prohibited from using the internet to carry out research.
In their
ruling, High Court judges Sir John Thomas and Mr Justice Sweeney said they
rejected as "untruthful" Davey's contention that his message was not
meant seriously.
They said it
made clear to his Facebook friends "he would use his prejudices in
deciding the case" and his choice of words "underlined his disregard
of the duties he had undertaken as a juror".
In Beard's
case, the High Court heard claims that he had wanted to find out how long the
proceedings at Kingston Crown Court would take as he was worried they would
drag on.
He was said
to have researched the case via the Google search engine and told fellow jurors
extra information about the number of victims of the alleged fraud.
The case was
abandoned in November last year after more than five weeks when his activity
came to light. The two defendants in the fraud case were later found guilty at
a retrial.
'Undermining
justice'
At the High
Court, Sir John - who is shortly to take over as the Lord Chief Justice, the
head of the judiciary in England and Wales - said "immediate custodial
sentences are almost inevitable in cases of this kind".
In his
ruling, he said that "every attempt is made to try and warn jurors not to
use the internet or social sites for any purpose in relation to the case".
He added:
"They have done this so that no juror can subsequently claim that he or she
did not understand what they should not do and what the consequences might
be."
But Sir John
said he would invite courts to consider whether a practice adopted by some
judges of also handing out a printed notice should be "universally
followed".
Speaking
after the case, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said jurors who use the
internet to research a case "undermine justice".
Mr Grieve
added: "It creates a risk that the defendant will be convicted or
acquitted, not on the evidence, but on unchallenged and untested material
discovered by the juror.
"Equally,
the case of Kasim Davey shows that jurors must follow the directions given to
them by the trial judge not to discuss the case outside the jury room,
including discussions and posts on the internet."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23495785
(1 August 2013)
In Malaysia, Order 52 Rule 1 of Rules of Court
2012, states:
Order 52. Committal
Definition
1. In this
Order—
“Court”
means the High Court, Sessions Court and Magistrates’ Court;
“Judge”
means a High Court Judge, Sessions Court Judge or Magistrate.
Committal for contempt of Court
2. The Court
may, on the application of any party to any cause or matter or on its own
motion, make an order of committal in Form 107.
Contempt committed in the face of
the Court
2A. (1) If a
contempt is committed in the face of the Court, it shall not be necessary to
serve a formal notice to show cause, but the Court shall ensure that the person
alleged to be in contempt understands the nature of the offence alleged against
him and has the opportunity to be heard in his own defence, and the Court shall
make a proper record of the proceedings.
(2) Where a
Judge is satisfied that a contempt has been committed in the face of the Court,
the Judge may order the contemnor to appear before him on the same day at the
time fixed by the Court for the purpose
of purging his contempt.
(3) Where
such person has purged his contempt by tendering his unreserved apology to the
Court and the Judge considers the contempt to be not of a serious nature, the
Judge may excuse such person and no further action shall be taken against him.
(4) Where
such person declines or refuses to purge his contempt, then the Judge shall
sentence him.
Other cases of contempt
2A. In all
other cases of contempt of Court, a formal notice to show cause why he should
not be committed to the prison or fined shall be served personally.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.