Re: David Duggan (Contempt in the face of the Court)

Insulting or repeatedly disruptive abuse directed at a judge may constitute contempt in the face of the court. The court must prove the conduct beyond reasonable doubt and be satisfied that the defendant possessed the required mens rea. Mental illness may contribute to, or exacerbate, loss of control, but does not necessarily excuse contempt where the defendant intended to disrupt the administration of justice or could foresee that consequence. Remote hearings are court hearings for these purposes, and participants owe the same respect to the judge, the process and the court’s dignity. Serious disruption may justify imprisonment, although contrition, apology, mental ill-health and other mitigation may justify suspension.

David Duggan was summoned by the High Court of its own motion in connection with conduct during a telephone case-management hearing in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996. He was alleged to have insulted and abused the district judge, repeatedly interrupted her, disrupted the hearing and indicated that he would publish a recording despite being warned that this might constitute contempt.

He admitted the factual allegations. The issues were whether the conduct amounted to contempt in the face of the court, whether he possessed the necessary mens rea in light of his mental ill-health, and what sentence was appropriate.

1. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Duggan had made the alleged abusive remarks, repeatedly interrupted the judge and behaved with anger and aggression. His conduct was insulting and disrespectful to the judge, offensive to the applicant, undermining of the dignity and authority of the court, and disruptive to the due administration of justice.
2. There is no excuse for insulting a judge or repeatedly disrupting a hearing with abusive outbursts, even though judges allow a degree of tolerance for emotional frustration and recognise the stress experienced by parties in family proceedings. A hearing conducted by telephone or video-link remains a court hearing, and the same standards of respect apply.
3. Applying the mens rea principles identified in R v Butler (Paul) [2005] EWCA 2708 and Att-Gen v Sport Newspapers Ltd [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1194, the court was satisfied that Mr Duggan intended to disrupt, or create a real risk of prejudicing, the administration of justice, or that this was a foreseeable consequence of his verbal abuse.
4. Mr Duggan’s mental ill-health did not account for or excuse his behaviour. It was accepted as having exacerbated his stress and anxiety and possibly contributed to his lack of control. His genuine contrition, apology to the district judge, acceptance that his conduct was improper and relevant mental-health circumstances were mitigating factors.
5. The contempt was sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment. Four concurrent terms of 14 days were imposed, but suspended for 12 months until 6 October 2023, on condition that Mr Duggan did not commit further contempt in court proceedings during that period.