West, Re

Where a court postpones an enquiry into an alleged contempt, it must strictly observe the procedural safeguards in Criminal Procedure Rules 2013, Part 62. The allegation must be clearly formulated and the prescribed notices served. A failure of that process invalidates a resulting contempt finding, even where the respondent knew that contempt would be considered.

The Crown Court’s active case-management powers impliedly permit it to require appropriate legal representation to attend a further hearing. Wilful disobedience of such a direction is serious professional misconduct, although not every discourtesy, refusal to assist or failure to attend amounts to contempt.

A barrister acting for a defendant at a Crown Court preliminary hearing refused to undertake a further conference requested by the judge for case-management purposes. The judge adjourned the hearing to the afternoon and directed him to return. The barrister did not return, believing that the adjournment was punitive.

After later hearings, the judge summarily found him in contempt and fined him £500. The barrister appealed under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The appeal raised questions about recusal, the procedure for contempt, the court’s power to require counsel’s attendance, and the boundary between professional discourtesy and contempt.

1. Appeal allowed. The contempt finding and £500 fine were set aside. Although the appellant was told by email that contempt would be considered, the court had postponed the enquiry without complying with the mandatory procedure in Criminal Procedure Rules 2013, Part 62. The required written statement and formal notices had not been prepared and served. Strict compliance is essential because the jurisdiction can affect liberty and defines the charge with precision.
2. The judge was not required to recuse himself. His view that the appellant had been impertinent did not give a fair-minded observer a real danger of bias. As the judge had observed the exchange, he was uniquely placed to assess its manner as well as its words.
3. The Crown Court had power under its active case-management jurisdiction to direct appropriate legal representation to attend an adjourned hearing. Participation in case management is not solely a private arrangement between client and lawyer. A representative may have good reasons for non-attendance, but must explain them to the court rather than wilfully defy its direction.
4. The court accepted the principles in Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114, Izuora v The Queen [1953] AC 327 and Weston v Central Criminal Courts Administrator [1977] 2 QB 32. Not every discourtesy, breach of duty or refusal to co-operate is contempt. Deliberate non-attendance may, however, amount to contempt where it interferes with the administration of justice. The court did not need finally to decide whether the appellant’s conduct satisfied that jurisdiction, because the procedural failure was decisive.

The court nevertheless described the appellant’s conduct as wilful and deliberate defiance, serious professional misconduct, and directed that the judgment be sent to the Bar Standards Board.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of contempt because the mandatory contempt procedure had not been followed.
• Crown Court at Durham: On 25 April 2014, following summary contempt proceedings, found the appellant in contempt and fined him £500.