Contempt can be civil or criminal, with civil contempt arising from a civil suit and criminal contempt being an offense against society. In the US, contempt charges can be brought against those who disobey court orders, disrupt court proceedings, or refuse to answer questions. Criminal contempt can be direct or indirect, and a person charged has the right to a trial. The UK’s Contempt of Court Act 1981 clarified the definition and application of contempt charges, while Australia’s laws parallel those of the UK and strictly control what the press can publish about open cases.
The word contempt generally means to have contempt for something or someone. In a legal sense, the concept of contempt includes not only contempt of court, but also disobeying a court order or an act that may hinder the administration of justice. Contempt can be civil or criminal; civil contempt involves an action against a person arising out of a civil suit, such as non-payment of child support; criminal contempt is considered an offense against society, such as interfering with judicial proceedings or denigrating the dignity of the court.
In common law, the judge is considered a representative of the law, and disrespect shown to him constitutes disrespect for the law. It is this interpretation that warrants a charge of criminal contempt on anyone who makes a mockery of a court or legislative body. In the United States, contempt charges can be brought against anyone who refuses to obey a court order, who shouts or is a disruption inside a courtroom, who holds an outside protest that is sufficiently disruptive to judicial matters within or who refuses to answer questions put to him by the judge. Judges are allowed a large leeway in determining whether or not contempt charges are justified, but higher courts have ruled that such charges should only be dropped if there is an apparent danger that justice will be obstructed.
Criminal contempt can be direct or indirect. Direct contempt is performed in the presence of the judge, such as when a lawyer or witness yells at the judge or refuses to provide evidence for which a subpoena has been issued. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of a judge and includes such things as improperly approaching a juror to argue the case, threatening or attempting to bribe a juror or prosecutor, or interfering with a trial server. US courts have ruled that there must be three elements to justify a charge of criminal contempt. The court must have issued a clear, reasonable and specific order; the convict, or the person accused of contempt, must have violated this order; and the infringement must have been intentional or intentional.
A person charged with criminal contempt has the same right to a trial as any other person charged with a crime. One of the criticisms of contempt hearings in the United States is that the same judge who does the prosecution often conducts the hearing and delivers the sentence. Another concern is that a penalty such as imprisonment may be imposed immediately before a hearing can take place, and that in some cases the sentence may be indefinite until the offender refuses to comply with the order. An example of this is when a reporter refuses to reveal his sources to the court. Contempt charges against journalists are rare in the United States, however, in accordance with constitutional protections of the press.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 clarified the definition and application of contempt charges in the UK. The two classifications of contempt are those acts committed “in court” and those that are constructive or indirect, also called contempt of strict liability. An act to your face would include destructive behavior in court, disobeying a court order, or a violation of a legal process. Strict liability contempt is most commonly used against the press for publishing a potentially prejudicial article about an open case. The law also includes the unauthorized recording of court proceedings and the photograph or sketch of a judge or witness under the definition of criminal contempt.
Australia’s criminal contempt laws parallel those of the UK and strictly control what the press can publish about any open case. In both countries, a case is considered open from the time a warrant is issued or an arrest is made until the legal proceedings are concluded. Journalists can publish descriptions of the proceedings, but must not reveal any background material about the defendant until a verdict has been reached, including any previous criminal convictions. In cases where a judge’s verdict causes public outrage, a reporter can report the facts and present an argument against the verdict, but cannot criticize the judge or imply that he is unqualified without risking a charge of criminal contempt.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
