Solicitor General v Holmes

Filming or photographing in court may constitute criminal contempt in addition to a summary-only statutory offence where the conduct is sufficiently serious that summary proceedings would not reflect its gravity. Relevant considerations include the context of the proceedings, potential interference with the administration of justice, the scale and dissemination of the recording, courtroom security, culpability and harm. Serious contempt may warrant immediate custody even where the contemnor acted recklessly rather than with a deliberate intention to disrupt proceedings. Admission of guilt, remorse and personal mitigation reduce sentence but do not necessarily justify suspension.

The Solicitor General applied for permission to bring committal proceedings against John Holmes for filming inside the secured dock at Northampton Crown Court during a serious multi-defendant criminal trial and sending the footage to a co-defendant by WhatsApp.

The recording showed defendants, dock officers and defence counsel. Reporting restrictions were in force and the trial concerned serious violent offences. Mr Holmes admitted the conduct, accepted service and expressed remorse. The central issues were whether the conduct was sufficiently serious to justify committal proceedings despite the available statutory offences, whether it amounted to criminal contempt, and what penalty was appropriate.

1. Permission and contempt. Permission was granted and a finding of contempt was made. The statutory prohibition on photography did not prevent the conduct from being pursued as common law criminal contempt where its gravity required the more severe sanctions available for contempt.
2. The relevant threshold was met because summary-only proceedings would not reflect the seriousness of the conduct. The recording was deliberate in the sense that it involved conscious filming and encouragement of others, although it was not made with a deliberate intention to disrupt the trial. It occurred during a lengthy and serious criminal trial involving violence, intimidation and reporting restrictions. It had potential to disrupt the proceedings, prejudice the administration of criminal justice, compromise the anonymity of dock officers and affect courtroom security. Sending the footage to a co-defendant created a potential for wider distribution and misuse.
3. In assessing penalty, the court considered culpability and harm, the context and gravity of the trial, the potential consequences, dissemination, the contemnor’s reasons and level of culpability, subsequent conduct, personal circumstances, antecedents, comparable sentences and deterrence. Punishment and deterrence were important purposes of sentencing for contempt.
4. The conduct amounted to reckless disobedience of an important prohibition and crossed the custody threshold. Admission of guilt, a sincere apology and remorse were credited. The appropriate sentence before that credit would have been three months’ imprisonment; two months was imposed after reduction for the admission of guilt.
5. Immediate custody was necessary. Personal mitigation, including the effect on Mr Holmes’s dependent family, was typical of many offenders and did not justify suspension. No order for costs was made.

First-instance committal proceedings in the High Court. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.