What is contempt of court?

Jul 07, 2004

In 1999, a gunman was robbing Maurice’s shop but Maurice overpowered the thug and arrested him. At the time of trial, Maurice responded court summons to give evidence against the robber.

In 1999, a gunman was robbing Maurice’s shop but Maurice overpowered the thug and arrested him. At the time of trial, Maurice responded court summons to give evidence against the robber. He sat in the courtroom and listened to other cases. He heard how the judge warned witnesses that they could be held in contempt of court if they continued to evade questions.
Maurice then sneaked out of the courtroom and ran away without testifying in his case. “I could not risk going to jail. Those people could easily have misinterpreted any of my actions and sent me to jail for contempt of court. I’ve sensed it. I’m not testifying”, a panting Maurice lamented to me as he justified his action.
The offence of contempt of court is one of the most peculiar and unpredictable one, and probably one of those that conjure fear into people while in courtrooms.
The judges and magistrates have been accused of having too much powers to interpret actions of people attending their courts as contempt of court, and thereby ‘summarily’ sending them to jail or fining them heavily. people have been convicted for contempt of court for reading newspapers in court, receiving phone calls, refusing to answer questions, failure to abide by court orders.
Contempt of court is any wilful disobedience to, or disregard of a court order or any misconduct in a court; action that interferes with a judge’s ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court. The offence is punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both.
A judge who feels someone is improperly challenging or ignoring the court’s authority has the power to declare the defiant person (called the contemnor) in contempt of court. “The offence is aimed at ensuring that the sanctity and dignity of courts is preserved and maintained”, said Moses Adriko, president of the Uganda Law Society while appearing on Radio One’s Spectrum.
There are two types of contempt, criminal and civil. Criminal contempt occurs when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly, for example, by yelling at the judge, assault in the courtroom, interruption of court proceedings, etc. This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. “This is often tried tinstantly before a judge/magistrate in that court. He is both the complainant and the judge and there is often no charge sheet drawn”, said a city lawyer who preferred anonymity, quoting a recent ban by the law council prohibiting lawyers from discussing certain issues in the press.

Civil contempt on the other hand occurs when the contemnor wilfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the judge’s immediate realm and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt.
A civil contemnor too, can be fined, jailed or both. In this type of contempt, a charge sheet is usually drawn and evidence adduced to prove the charge. The fine or jailing in this case is meant to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him/her, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he/she complies with the court order.
Civil contempt has been mainly applied in family law as a way for a court enforces alimony, child support, custody and visitation orders which have been violated.
“However, many courts have realised that, at least regarding various procedural matters such as appointment of counsel, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is often blurred and uncertain”, said a statement by the America based Lectric Law Library’s Legal Lexicons on Contempt of Court, on their website www.lectlaw.com.
During training, journalists are told to be careful while covering courts of law not to commit the offence of contempt. Some of the journalists’ actions that may amount to contempt of court may include photographing or sketching in court, audio and video recordings of court proceedings.
For a long time scholars have criticised the fairness of the law of contempt of court. This is because the offended courts are always the trial courts. This is argued to be against the rule of natural justice of ‘one not being a judge in his/her own cause’. Some jurisprudence indicates unfairness in this state of affairs and out-rules it. In a case R Vs Saidi Ibrahim (1960) EA 1058, the applicant had appealed against a conviction on the offence of contempt of court arguing that the offended magistrate was at the same time the trial magistrate, and therefore could not be fair. The East African Court of Appeal trail judge, Sir Ralph Windham then ruled: “...the only other point argued in this application for revision is that the case against the applicant, of contempt of court ought to have been heard by another Magistrate, and not by same Magistrate who had recorded the reconciliation ...including the applicant’s undertaking the breach of which constituted the contempt of court”.

Another argument is that the summarily way of trial of the offence of contempt of court denies accused persons the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 28 of the constitution. Under normal circumstances, every person charged of a criminal offence must be informed of the charges and formerly charged, given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his/her defence and is entitled to legal representation and cross examination of witnesses.
However, in the case of contempt of court, these rights are often violated. Although in all other circumstances you wouldn’t be charge of an offence which is not prescribed by law, the case of contempt of court is different. Article 28(12) of the Uganda Constitution states: “Except for contempt of court, no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it prescribed by law”. Here, the Constitution seems to give a leeway to judged/magistrates to handle this offence as they wish.

However, some jurisdictions have ruled against the summarily convictions in the offence of contempt of court. In Tanzania for example, in a case of Lameck Kibacho Vs Republic (1979) LRT n 19, a police officer who had been charged of reading a newspaper in court and therefore convicted of contempt of court without being properly charged appealed the conviction. Supreme court judge Jonathan, J ruled thus: “It was improper for the trial court to summarily convict the accused of contempt of court without drawing up a charge and asking the accused why he should not be convicted on the charge”
Ends

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});