CONTEMPT OF COURT
{A Paper delivered by Madam Justice Shameem
at the Attorney-General’s Conference,
December 2004}
____________
“The law on this subject is and must be
founded entirely on public policy. It
is not there to protect the private
rights of parties to a litigation or
prosecution. It is there to prevent
interference with the administration of
justice and it should in my judgment be
limited to what is reasonably necessary
for that purpose. Public policy
generally requires a balancing of
interests which may conflict. Freedom
of speech should not be limited to any
greater extent than is necessary, but
it cannot be allowed where there would
be real prejudice to the administration
of justice.”
Per Lord Reid in A-G v. Times
Newspapers Ltd. [1974] AC 273, 294 H.L.
The law of contempt of court has, as its sole purpose,
the maintenance of the authority and the dignity of the
courts. Section 124 of the Constitution provides that the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court have
power to punish persons for contempt of court in accordance
with the law. Jurisdiction for contempt of court exists in
a limited form under statute and generally, under common
law. Inevitably, in cases of criminal contempt, the
interference with the proper administration of justice must
be balanced with a citizen’s right to freedom of
2
expression. In cases of contempt in civil proceedings, the
courts are more likely to be concerned with the wilfulness
of the disobedience of a court order. In this paper, I
will deal with issues of interest to a practitioner, in
relation to criminal contempt and civil contempt.
Criminal Contempt
I call this topic criminal contempt although of course
contempt of court, leading to conviction and sentence, can
arise in all court proceedings and is always criminal in
sanctions. However, behaviour leading to convictions of
contempt for “scandalising the court” usually arise, for
some reason, in criminal proceedings.