Huggins, R. v

When sentencing for contempt in the face of the court, a court must protect the administration of justice and jurors from genuine threats, intimidation and persistent disruption. Detention may be justified for conduct of that kind. It must, however, distinguish such conduct from an emotional and intemperate outburst made in the heat of the moment.

The period of detention must reflect the true nature and immediate impact of the conduct. Relevant matters include whether words were genuinely threatening, the offender’s emotional circumstances, the effect on those present, and any prompt apology.

At the Crown Court at Croydon, Raphael Huggins made an emotional outburst from the public gallery after his mother was convicted of importing cocaine and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He raised an arm towards the jury and left the courtroom. The trial judge found him in contempt in the face of the court and ordered 28 days’ detention in a young offender’s institution.

He appealed as of right under section 13(2)(bb) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, challenging both the contempt finding and the length of detention. Because the Crown had not had an opportunity to address the challenge to the finding, the Court of Appeal adjourned that issue and determined only the appeal against the period of detention.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of the period of detention. The order for 28 days’ detention was set aside and replaced with detention for seven days, enabling the appellant’s immediate release. The appeal against the finding of contempt was adjourned.

2. Contempt in the face of the court takes different forms. A court must act firmly where conduct persistently disrupts proceedings or where threats to jurors are intended, or may reasonably be understood, as serious. Such conduct can prejudice the administration of justice and expose jurors to intimidation.

3. Those cases must be distinguished from intemperate remarks made under immediate emotional stress. The trial judge was best placed to assess the appellant’s conduct at the time, but the transcript showed an expression of anger and frustration rather than threats against the jury. There was no reason to think that the jurors had felt particularly threatened.

4. The appellant was 19, had just witnessed his mother receive a lengthy prison sentence, and apologised after he had calmed down. On those facts, detention beyond the end of the day was doubtful; in any event, 28 days was excessive. Having served nine days, he had been detained long enough.

There was a nil order for recovery of defence costs. The appellant was to notify the court within seven days whether he would pursue or withdraw his outstanding appeal against the finding of contempt.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—In [2006] EWCA Crim 1637, set aside the 28-day detention order and substituted seven days’ detention. It adjourned the appeal against the finding of contempt.
• Crown Court at Croydon—On 13 June 2006, found the appellant in contempt in the face of the court and ordered 28 days’ detention in a young offender’s institution.