5 highlights
-
This need to “respect the authority and dignity of the court” has monarchical origins from when the King of England delivered judgments himself. But over the centuries, with this adjudicatory role now having been handed over to judges, showing extreme deference to judges does not sit well with the idea of a democracy.
-
And truth and good faith were not recognised as valid defences until 2006, when the Contempt of Courts Act was amended.
-
An excessively loose use of the test of ‘loss of public confidence’, combined with a liberal exercise of suo motu powers, can be dangerous, for it can amount to the Court signalling that it will not suffer any kind of critical commentary about the institution at all, regardless of how evidently problematic its actions may be.
-
The objective for contempt is stated to be to safeguard the interests of the public, if the authority of the Court is denigrated and public confidence in the administration of justice is weakened or eroded.1
- Canada ties its test for contempt to real, substantial and immediate dangers to the administration, whereas American courts also no longer use the law of contempt in response to comments on judges or legal matters.
Footnotes
-
How would contempt proceedings help when public confidence in the judicial system is eroded? ↩