HM Attorney General v Scarth

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by Her Majesty's Solicitor General for the committal of the Defendant for contempt of court. Two contempts are alleged: first, that on 2 February 2012 at Leeds Magistrates' Court, the Defendant recorded court proceedings without leave, contrary to section 9(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; and second, that the Defendant published a recording of those proceedings on the "You Tube" website contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the same Act.

The Defendant did not attend the hearing and was represented by counsel with limited instructions. The Defendant was involved in prior criminal proceedings for offences of harassment and religiously aggravated disorderly conduct in 2011, which were dealt with separately. The Defendant, aged 87, has a history including a conviction for wounding with intent following an attack with a chainsaw, later replaced by a hospital order due to mental health concerns.

Previously, the Defendant recorded proceedings in the Royal Courts of Justice and posted them online, receiving a warning from the Attorney General. At a Crown Court hearing in Bradford in July 2011, the Defendant recorded proceedings covertly using a pen with a recording device, was confronted, responded abusively to the judge and court staff, and was sentenced for contempt to consecutive prison terms. The sentence was later reduced and served concurrently due to medical evidence of a delusional disorder.

In September and October 2011, the Defendant engaged in troubling conduct targeting the judge involved in his cases, resulting in charges of harassment and offensive behaviour. The hearing for these charges was completed in his absence in May 2012, resulting in fines, costs, and a restraining order.

The present contempt proceedings focus solely on the unauthorised recording of court proceedings on 2 February 2012 and the subsequent publication of that recording online.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant deliberately contravened section 9(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 by recording court proceedings without leave.
2. Whether the Defendant contravened section 9(1)(b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 by publishing the recording of court proceedings.
3. The appropriate penalty for the contempts found, considering the Defendant's age, health, and mental condition.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found overwhelming evidence that the Defendant deliberately contravened the prohibitions under section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 by recording court proceedings without leave and publishing the recording online. The Defendant did not apply for permission to record, which the court noted could have been granted given his age, hearing difficulties, and mistrust of official recordings.

The court considered the Defendant’s history, including his mental health diagnosis of delusional disorder and his persistent contemptuous behaviour despite warnings and previous sentences. Although sympathetic to the Defendant’s age and infirmity, the court emphasized that repeated deliberate contempts could not be excused on that basis alone.

The court acknowledged that a medical disposal would have been preferable but was not feasible due to the Defendant’s absence and opposition to medical examination. The court balanced the need to uphold the law and protect the integrity of court proceedings against the Defendant’s personal circumstances.

Ultimately, the court concluded that a committal order was appropriate but suspended it for twelve months, allowing the Defendant an opportunity to avoid immediate imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered committal of the Defendant for contempt on two counts for 28 days each, to run concurrently, but suspended the order for twelve months.

This decision directly affects the Defendant by imposing a suspended custodial sentence for repeated contempts involving unauthorised recording and publication of court proceedings. The court made clear that while it would have granted permission for recording had an application been made, the misuse of recordings published publicly is not tolerated. No new precedent was established; the ruling reinforces existing legal principles governing court recording and contempt.