Contempt of Court CASES

In English law, contempt of court protects the administration of justice. It covers conduct that interferes with, obstructs, or risks prejudicing court proceedings, as well as deliberate disobedience of court orders and undertakings. Some forms of contempt are prosecuted as criminal offences; others are enforced through the court’s own powers (committal, fines, sequestration). Although contempt often sits at the boundary between civil and criminal law, proceedings are serious and attract strong procedural safeguards.

Definition and principles

There are two broad families. Interference contempts address behaviour that undermines the fairness of trials or the authority of the court. This includes the statutory “strict liability rule” for publications that create a substantial risk of serious prejudice once proceedings are active, contempt in the face of the court (disruptive conduct in the courtroom), and juror contempts (for example, researching a case online or sharing deliberations). Disobedience contempts address knowing breaches of orders or undertakings—such as ignoring an injunction or a freezing order. In both families the aim is to safeguard justice, not to vindicate private feelings.

The strict liability rule (publications about active cases)

Once proceedings are legally “active” (for example, after arrest or charge), publishers—including individuals posting online—must not publish matter that creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in those proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Intent to prejudice is not required. Defences include innocent publication (reasonable care was taken and the publisher did not know proceedings were active), fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of public hearings, and discussion of public affairs where any risk is merely incidental to a wider, genuinely public-interest discussion. Courts can make postponement orders to delay reporting if that is necessary to protect a trial.

Contempt in the face of the court and juries

Judges may deal swiftly with conduct that disrupts proceedings, intimidates witnesses, or defies directions in the courtroom. Jurors must decide cases only on the evidence heard; researching the case, communicating about deliberations, or seeking external views can amount to contempt. Publication of jury deliberations is itself a distinct contempt.

Disobedience of orders and undertakings

A person who knows of a clear, properly served order (usually bearing a penal notice) and deliberately breaches it risks committal. This applies to individuals and, where appropriate, to officers of companies who participate in or permit breaches. The order must be unambiguous; where terms are unclear, contempt will not lie. Third parties who knowingly assist a breach can also be liable.

Standard of proof and procedure

Because liberty is at stake, the alleged contempt must be proved to the criminal standard (so that the court is sure), even when proceedings are brought in the civil courts. The respondent is entitled to clear particulars, disclosure of the material relied on, and a fair opportunity to answer the case. Some statutory contempts require the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute.

Sanctions and remedies

Courts may impose immediate or suspended prison sentences, fines, sequestration of assets, or orders designed to purge the contempt (for example, delivery up of documents). In publication cases, remedies can include take-down orders and postponement orders. Sentencing reflects culpability, harm or risk to the administration of justice, and the need for deterrence.

Interaction with open justice and freedom of expression

Open justice is the starting point: hearings are public and can be reported. Contempt is a narrow, necessary limit to protect fair trials and effective orders. Restrictions must be clear, evidence-based, and proportionate. Media organisations and academics can rely on statutory protections for fair and accurate contemporaneous reporting of public proceedings, but those protections do not extend to prejudicial commentary about pending trials.

Common examples

  • Publishing allegations about a defendant’s past or character between charge and trial, creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice.
  • Live-streaming or photographing inside court without permission, or abusing participants online in a way that intimidates witnesses or jurors.
  • Breaching an interim non-disclosure or harassment injunction after service, or assisting someone else to do so.
  • Jurors searching the internet about the case, discussing deliberations with outsiders, or sharing deliberations publicly.
  • Refusing to comply with a clear order to deliver up assets or documents under a freezing or search order.

Practical importance

For students: check whether proceedings are active, stick to fair and accurate reports of what is said in open court, avoid prejudicial commentary, and take legal advice before running material that could affect a jury. Keep records of verification and timing.

For litigants and practitioners: ensure orders are precise, include penal notices where enforcement may be needed, and serve them correctly. If breach is alleged, assemble clear evidence of knowledge, service, and the specific acts said to constitute contempt.

For public bodies and courts: use the least restrictive measure (for example, a postponement order rather than a blanket ban) to secure a fair trial.

See also: Open justice; Reporting restrictions; Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression); Jury; Injunctions; Freezing orders; Service and penal notices; Attorney General’s role.

Lady justice next to law books

Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank Plc [2004] EWHC 122 (Comm) (03 February 2004)

HM Customs & Excise obtained freezing orders against companies banking with Barclays. Despite notification, the bank negligently allowed funds to be withdrawn. Customs & Excise sued for damages. The court held that the bank owed them no duty of care in tort. Facts The claimants, the Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C&E), obtained freezing injunctions against two companies, Brightstar Systems Ltd and Doveblue Ltd, in relation to unpaid VAT. The orders were intended to prevent the companies from dissipating their assets below a certain value. The injunctions were served on Barclays Bank Plc, where the companies held accounts. Despite being