Grant, R. v

A court may deal with contempt in the face of the court summarily only where this is necessary to preserve the integrity of the trial or the dignity of the court. Urgency does not remove the procedural safeguards owed to the alleged contemnor. The alleged conduct must be clearly identified, and the person must have representation, a proper opportunity to investigate and respond, and an opportunity to apologise.

A conviction is unsafe where the judge assumes guilt without obtaining a distinct admission or allowing a proper examination of material circumstances. Contempt must be distinctly admitted or proved beyond reasonable doubt. A substantial fine should not be imposed without a proper inquiry into means and ability to pay.

The appellant and a co-accused were tried for firearms offences at Blackfriars Crown Court. During the jury’s return of verdicts, the co-accused became aggressive towards the appellant. The appellant responded by shouting and gesturing before sitting down and apologising.

The trial judge summarily convicted the appellant of contempt in the face of the court and fined him £1,000, with imprisonment in default. The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence as of right under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The central issue was whether the summary procedure had fairly established contempt and whether the fine had been properly imposed.

1. Appeal allowed. Although the judge was entitled to act urgently to restore order and was right to deal with the incident summarily, the contempt conviction was unsafe and was quashed.

2. The court applied the procedural principles stated in R v Moran, 81 Cr App R 51. Summary disposal is justified only where necessary to protect the integrity of the trial or the dignity of the court. The alleged contemnor must be clearly told the conduct alleged, have legal representation and a reasonable chance to investigate the circumstances, and be allowed to apologise where appropriate. The decision to proceed summarily should not be made precipitately.

3. The judge wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the appellant was guilty. He did not ask whether the appellant admitted either the alleged conduct or that it amounted to contempt. A person may be convicted of contempt only on a distinct admission or where contempt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

4. A fuller inquiry, including an opportunity to consider the recording, could have addressed matters material to culpability: the appellant’s lack of incentive to disrupt the remaining verdicts, the provocation by the co-accused, the limited duration of his participation, and his immediate regret and apology. The omission of those safeguards made the finding unsafe.

5. The £1,000 fine would independently have been quashed. The judge imposed it without a proper inquiry into the appellant’s means or ability to pay.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the summary conviction for contempt and the fine.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: Summarily convicted the appellant of contempt in the face of the court and imposed a £1,000 fine, with 28 days’ imprisonment in default.