Factual and Procedural Background
On the early morning of 20 October 2017, Plaintiff and Respondent were at Plaintiff's residence at 18 Hill Top Road, The City, when a group of men arrived on a motorbike and attacked the property by smashing the Respondent's car windscreen and firing multiple shots into the house. No injuries occurred. Charges were brought against Defendant A and two others, with the prosecution alleging a motive of jealousy linked to Defendant A's relationship with Respondent. Neither Plaintiff nor Respondent cooperated with the police; Plaintiff possibly due to concerns about his own criminality.
The criminal trial began on 9 October 2018 before Judge Rose. On 18 October, during cross-examination of Defendant A, Respondent, present in the public gallery, disrupted proceedings by standing and shouting statements implicating an individual named Jordon Rawson in the shooting. The trial judge promptly removed the jury, prohibited Respondent from re-entering the courtroom except in relation to her conduct, and ordered a retrial, which occurred in March 2019 resulting in convictions and prison sentences for the defendants.
The judge referred Respondent's outburst to the Attorney General rather than dealing with it directly. On 21 December 2018, Applicant notified Respondent of possible contempt proceedings, seeking a response within 14 days, which was not provided. Subsequently, on 4 March 2019, Applicant issued a Part 8 claim form seeking an order for committal against Respondent for contempt of court. The claim was personally served on Respondent on 19 March 2019. Respondent did not acknowledge service within the required period. An adjournment request was later withdrawn. The hearing took place on 22 May 2019, where permission to apply for the committal order was granted following consideration of jurisdictional and procedural issues.
Legal Issues Presented
- Does the Divisional Court have jurisdiction to deal with this application?
- If so, is permission required to proceed?
- If permission is required, what is the applicable test for granting it?
- Should permission be granted in this particular case?
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Divisional Court has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with contempt committed in the face of the court, notwithstanding ambiguities in CPR Part 81.
- Permission is required before seeking an order for committal under CPR Part 81.12 and 81.13.
- The applicable test for permission involves demonstrating at least a prima facie case of contempt and that it is in the public interest to proceed.
- There is a strong prima facie case of contempt by Respondent based on the transcript and evidence, justifying permission.
Respondent's Arguments
- Respondent's counsel acknowledged that the reference to the individual named in the outburst was a transcription error and accepted the corrected identity.
- Respondent did not contest the deliberate nature of the outburst but did not pursue an adjournment at the hearing.
- Respondent’s counsel suggested that the procedural requirements and jurisdictional issues might be resolved via the postponed enquiry mechanism under Criminal Procedure Rule 48.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73 |
Concurrent jurisdiction of Divisional Court and trial judges in contempt cases; summary punishment powers of trial judges |
Confirmed the Divisional Court’s concurrent jurisdiction and the limited circumstances in which trial judges should act suo motu |
| DPP v Channel 4 Television Co Limited [1993] 2 All E.R. 517 |
Choice of jurisdiction between summary jurisdiction and Divisional Court for contempt |
Supported the view of concurrent jurisdiction and limitations on trial judge’s summary powers |
| R v M [2009] 1 WLR 1179 |
Two routes for dealing with criminal contempt: summary or Divisional Court application |
Affirmed procedural options for contempt cases |
| Tinkler v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564 |
Requirement of a strong prima facie case for permission to bring committal proceedings |
Guided the court’s approach to the threshold test for permission applications |
| Grosvenor Chemicals Limited v UPL Deutschland GmbH [2017] EWHC 1893 |
Application of strong prima facie case threshold in contempt proceedings |
Reinforced the threshold for permission, especially in cases involving false statements |
| Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV [2013] EWCA Civ 1540 |
Public interest as a critical consideration in permission to commit proceedings |
Applied the public interest test to the permission stage in contempt cases |
| Solicitor General v Cox [2016] QB 1241 |
Intent not required for contempt in the face of the court; deliberate act suffices |
Supported the court’s finding that Respondent’s deliberate conduct constituted contempt |
| R v Powell [1994] 98 Cr. App. R 224 |
De minimis threshold for disruption constituting contempt |
Applied to assess the seriousness of Respondent’s disruption justifying committal |
| Simmonds v Pearce [2018] 1 WLR 1849 |
Interpretation of CPR Part 81 and preservation of Divisional Court jurisdiction |
Supported the conclusion that Part 81 does not exclude Divisional Court jurisdiction despite drafting issues |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed examination of the procedural rules governing committal for contempt, focusing on CPR Part 81 and its historical antecedents. It identified that the Divisional Court has long exercised concurrent jurisdiction with trial judges over contempts committed in the face of the court, a jurisdiction preserved despite the ambiguous and infelicitous drafting of CPR Part 81 following its 2014 revamp.
The court analyzed the structure of Part 81, distinguishing between three categories of contempt: (i) contempt in the face of the court, (ii) contempt by breach of order or undertaking, and (iii) contempt interfering with the administration of justice. It concluded that although Part 81.12-81.14 appear to exclude contempt in the face of the court from requiring permission, this was a drafting error, and the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction and the requirement for permission remain intact when the original court does not deal with the contempt.
The court endorsed the procedural mechanism whereby an application for permission to seek a committal order must be made to the Divisional Court under CPR 81.12-81.14 if the original court declines to act. It rejected the suggestion that the Criminal Procedure Rules’ postponed enquiry regime displaces this jurisdiction.
Regarding the test for permission, the court articulated a twofold standard: the applicant must demonstrate at least a prima facie case of contempt, and it must be in the public interest to proceed. It acknowledged arguments that a lower threshold might apply to contempts in the face of the court, but found it unnecessary to decide definitively as a strong prima facie case was established on the facts.
On the facts, the court found that Respondent’s deliberate outburst, corroborated by transcript and testimony, constituted contempt, causing serious disruption including aborting the trial and delaying proceedings by several months. The court agreed with the Applicant that the public interest strongly favored proceeding with committal.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to GRANT PERMISSION to the Applicant to apply for an order for committal against the Respondent for contempt of court.
This decision confirms that the Divisional Court retains concurrent jurisdiction to hear committal applications for contempt committed in the face of the court when the original court does not address the contempt. It clarifies that permission is required for such applications and sets out a clear two-stage test for granting permission: a prima facie case of contempt and public interest considerations. The ruling underscores the seriousness with which contempts disrupting the administration of justice are treated and supports procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and proper judicial oversight. No new precedent was established beyond confirming existing jurisdiction and procedural requirements under CPR Part 81.