HM Solicitor General v Holmes

Where contempt is committed in the face of a court but the original court does not deal with it, the Divisional Court retains concurrent jurisdiction to entertain committal proceedings. Permission is required before such proceedings may be brought.

The permission test has two limbs: whether there is at least a prima facie case of contempt and whether bringing committal proceedings is in the public interest. The permission stage is a gatekeeping exercise, not a provisional trial of the merits. The threshold does not vary according to the identity of the applicant, although an application by a Law Officer is relevant to the public-interest assessment.

The Solicitor General applied under CPR Part 8 for permission to bring committal proceedings against Sophie Holmes. During a criminal trial at Bradford Crown Court, the respondent interrupted proceedings from the public gallery and made an outburst identifying an alleged shooter. The trial judge discharged the jury, ordered a retrial and referred the matter to the Attorney General.

The application raised four questions: whether the Divisional Court had jurisdiction, whether permission was required, the applicable permission test, and whether permission should be granted. The central issue was how CPR Part 81 applied where contempt in the face of the court was not dealt with by the original court.

1. Jurisdiction. The Divisional Court has long exercised a concurrent supervisory jurisdiction over contempt committed in criminal proceedings at first instance. The 2014 redrafting of CPR Part 81 did not remove that jurisdiction. CPR Part 81 must be read as a whole. Rule 81.16 preserves the original court’s discretionary power to deal summarily with contempt in its face, while rules 81.12 to 81.14 provide the procedure where the original court does not deal with the matter.
2. Permission. Permission is required for an application to the Divisional Court for committal where the original court has decided not to deal with contempt in its face. This provides an appropriate gatekeeping stage, particularly because the original court has first-hand knowledge of the alleged contempt. The postponed-enquiry procedure under the Criminal Procedure Rules is useful and should generally be considered, but it does not displace the Divisional Court’s concurrent jurisdiction.
3. Applicable test. The applicant must demonstrate at least a prima facie case of contempt and establish that it is in the public interest for committal proceedings to be brought. The permission hearing should not become a detailed assessment of the ultimate merits. The identity of the applicant does not alter the legal threshold, although the independence of a Law Officer is relevant to the public-interest limb.
4. Application. There was at least a strong prima facie case. The respondent deliberately stood up and shouted, and specific intent was unnecessary: Solicitor General v Cox [2016] QB 1241 at [70]. The disruption exceeded the de minimis threshold because it aborted the trial, caused a substantial delay and required a retrial: R v Powell [1994] 98 Cr. App. R 224. There was also a clear public interest in examining the conduct and, if contempt were established, considering the penalty. Permission was granted.