Jones, R v

A person who deliberately disobeys a judge’s express directions and responds contemptuously commits contempt in the face of the court. Where the judge has personally witnessed the conduct, fairness does not require a further factual inquiry before a summary finding of contempt.

The absence of the jury does not remove the seriousness of conduct that disrupts criminal proceedings. The court may impose an immediate custodial sentence where the disruption occurs during a security-sensitive trial and the contemnor fails properly to acknowledge its gravity.

The appellant attended the trial of his sister and others at Blackfriars Crown Court. The proceedings involved anonymous witnesses, substantial security measures and repeated judicial directions prohibiting communication between the public gallery and the court below.

After the jury left for a break, the appellant spoke loudly and laughed while communicating with a member of the defence team. Despite three directions to stop and leave the court, he reacted dismissively. The judge found him in contempt in the face of the court and sentenced him to seven days’ imprisonment.

The appellant appealed against both the finding and sentence. He contended that his conduct was not contemptuous and that fairness required the judge to make further inquiry into the circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled summarily to find the appellant in contempt in the face of the court and the seven-day sentence was appropriate.

2. The judge had personally seen the appellant’s conduct and his reaction to repeated directions. The appellant had attended the trial for about 14 days and knew the instructions governing the public gallery. His apology did not acknowledge the essential findings that he had spoken loudly to a member of the defence team and laughed when admonished.

3. In those circumstances, no further inquiry was required or appropriate. This was not an isolated emotional reaction, such as one following a verdict. It was a deliberate breach of an order made to secure the proper management of an ongoing criminal trial.

4. The court had regard to the guidance concerning courtroom misbehaviour exemplified by R v Huggins [2007] EWCA Crim 732. The exceptional security requirements and the appellant’s plainly contemptuous response justified immediate action.

5. Respect for criminal proceedings requires proper conduct by both participants and observers. It was immaterial that the jury was absent. A member of the public who disrupts proceedings in defiance of express directions may expect an appropriate sanction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the finding of contempt and the seven-day custodial sentence.
• Blackfriars Crown Court: on 25 October 2011 found the appellant in contempt in the face of the court and sentenced him to seven days’ imprisonment.