Contempt of court has a significant impact on journalism in the form of restrictions on judicial reporting imposed by law in the UK. [8] [Review denied] Contempt of court, often referred to simply as “contempt”, is the offence of disobedience or disrespect towards a court and its officials, in the form of conduct that challenges or opposes the authority, justice and dignity of the court. [1] [2] A similar attitude toward a legislature is called contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The rule-making power includes the power to enforce and tie them to those who violate them and to punish them for contempt. This power to punish for contempt is limited to punishment during the legislature and cannot go beyond that, and it appears that this power cannot be exercised beyond imprisonment. In Canada, contempt of court is an exception to the general principle that all crimes are listed in the federal Criminal Code. Contempt of court and contempt of Parliament are the only remaining common law offences in Canada. [12] In U.S. jurisprudence, acts of contempt are generally divided into direct or indirect law and civil or criminal law. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of a judge; Civil contempt is “coercion and reparation” as opposed to punishment. In the United States, relevant laws include 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 401-403 and Federal Code of Criminal Procedure 42. [18] Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, and “the jury requirement does not apply to “contempt committed in disobedience to any lawful writing, process, order, rule, order, order, or order filed or continued in any lawful prosecution or proceeding instituted or continued in the name, name or name or name of the United States.”” This attitude is not generally accepted by other branches of the legal world, and there have been many calls for contempt cases to be tried by juries rather than judges, as a potential conflict of interest arises from a judge who both charges and convicts the accused.
At least one Supreme Court judge has called for jury trials to replace trials in contempt cases. [23] Section 17 of the Judicial Act of 1789 provides that the courts have the power “to punish, at the discretion of such courts, any contempt of authority in or before them with a fine or imprisonment.” Section 2 of the Act defines and limits the former common law definition of contempt (which was previously based on the presumption that any conduct, regardless of intent, could be treated as contempt) to cases where intent can be shown to cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice (i.e., the conduct of proceedings). Indirect contempt is associated with civil and implicit contempt and involves non-compliance with court orders. Criminal contempt includes anything that could be considered a nuisance, such as repeatedly speaking irrelevantly, producing previously prohibited evidence, or harassing another party in the courtroom. [5] Direct contempt is an unacceptable act in the presence of the judge (in facie curiae) and usually begins with a warning and may be accompanied by an immediate imposition of a sentence. Yawning, in some cases, can be considered contempt of court. [7] If a court decides that an act constitutes contempt of court, it may make an order declaring, in the context of a judicial proceeding or trial, that a person or organization has ignored or disrespected the authority of the court, which is described as “found” or “despised”. This is the judge`s strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that interfere with the normal court process. There are generally two categories of contempt: disrespecting judicial authorities in the courtroom or wilfully disobeying a court order. [3] Non-compliance procedures are used in particular to enforce equitable remedies such as injunctions. [4] In some jurisdictions, refusal to respond to a subpoena, to testify, to serve as a jury, or to provide certain information may constitute contempt of court. The classification of non-compliance is important because different categories of non-compliance result in different procedural safeguards and penalties.
For example, in Michigan, a person charged with criminal contempt is granted some of the same rights as a criminal accused. Among other things, the presumption of innocence applies, he has the right not to incriminate himself and contempt must be proven beyond doubt. On the other hand, civil contempt requires only basic guarantees of due process. As such, the person only needs to be notified and given an opportunity to be heard, and the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence. A judge who believes that someone is unduly challenging or ignoring the authority of the court has the power to declare the provocative person (called contemnor) contempt of court. There are two types of contempt: criminal and civil. Under the rules of the Tax Court of Canada Act, a person convicted of contempt can be sentenced to imprisonment or a fine of less than two years. Similar procedures for the service of an order are also used in the Tax Court. Contempt of court is essentially considered to be a form of disorder that may interfere with the functioning of the court. The judge may impose fines and/or imprisonment on any person who contempts of court. The person is usually removed after their consent to comply with the wishes of the court. [5] Civil contempt may include omissions.
The judge will use warnings in most situations that can lead to a contempt charge if the warnings are ignored. It is relatively rare for a person to be charged with contempt without first receiving at least one warning from the judge. [6] Implied contempt, also known as correlative contempt, occurs when a person fails to comply with the will of the court as it applies to his or her external obligations. In most cases, implied contempt is considered civil contempt because of its passive nature. However, many courts have recognized that, at least with respect to various procedural issues, such as the appointment of counsel, the distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt is often blurred and uncertain. Civil contempt is only appropriate if the imposed party is allowed to comply with the underlying order. [20] Controversial contempt judgments have regularly been rendered in cases involving asset protection trusts, in which the court has ordered the settlor of an asset protection trust to recover assets so that the assets can be made available to a creditor. [21] A court cannot confirm a conviction order if the taxed party is unable to comply with the underlying order. This claim, when made by the imposed party, is called a “defense of impossibility”. [22] A finding of contempt of court may result from failure to comply with a lawful court order, disrespect for the judge, disruption of proceedings due to misconduct or publication of documents, or failure to disclose documents that could jeopardize a fair trial.
A judge can impose sanctions such as a fine or jail time on a person convicted of contempt of court, making contempt of court a procedural crime. Judges in common law systems generally have broader powers to declare someone despised than judges in civil law systems. If it is necessary to act quickly, a judge can act to impose a conviction (to prison) for contempt.