Britton, R. v

Abusive outbursts when a criminal verdict is announced may amount to serious contempt in the face of the court. Threats directed at jurors are especially serious because they can frighten jurors and undermine the proper administration of justice. Custody may therefore be necessary even where the contempt was committed in the heat of the moment.

In sentencing for such contempt, the court must nevertheless assess the particular circumstances afresh. Genuine and repeated apologies, previous good character, and substantial family responsibilities may make an otherwise appropriate custodial term manifestly excessive.

Following the conviction of the appellant’s son and daughter for offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the appellant swore at and threatened the jury from the public gallery as the verdicts were delivered. The trial judge found that the remarks were directed at the jury and that jurors had been frightened.

At Aylesbury Crown Court on 8 August 2006, the appellant was found to be in contempt in the face of the court and sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment. She appealed against sentence as of right, contending that the term was excessive in light of her apologies, good character, employment, and responsibility for her granddaughter.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court quashed the eight-week sentence for contempt in the face of the court and substituted 20 days’ imprisonment, resulting in the appellant’s release that day.

2. The trial judge was right to regard the conduct as serious. Although strong feelings may arise when criminal verdicts are announced, abusive outbursts of this kind cannot be tolerated. They may diminish public respect for the justice system and, at their most serious, cause distress or fear to others present.

3. A threat directed at jurors is particularly grave. The threat in this case had frightened the jury, who were required to leave by an alternative exit. The appellant’s conduct therefore clearly crossed the custody threshold, notwithstanding that it was uttered in the heat of the moment.

4. However, the appellate court reconsidered sentence in the particular circumstances. It gave weight to the appellant’s good character, her two apologies, and the practical consequences of her detention for her granddaughter’s care and the family home. Those matters did not remove the need for immediate custody, but made eight weeks excessive and manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the eight-week sentence and substituting 20 days’ imprisonment.
• Aylesbury Crown Court: On 8 August 2006, found the appellant in contempt in the face of the court and imposed eight weeks’ imprisonment.