header-logo header-logo

Clarity sought on contempt of court

19 November 2025
Issue: 8140 / Categories: Legal News , Contempt
printer mail-detail
Contempt of court laws would be split into four distinct categories, under Law Commission recommendations to make them fit for the digital age

Currently, more than 100 people are sent to prison each year for contempt of court. However, contempt also exists in civil law, which creates confusion, and the Law Commission argues the current structure is out of date and lacks clarity. Instead, it recommends there be four forms of contempt.

First, general contempt, where a person deliberately interferes with the administration of justice in a ‘non-trivial way’, or creates a ‘substantial risk’ of doing so.

Second, breach of court order or undertaking, where the person was aware the breach would be a contempt. Third, publishing material while proceedings are active, which creates a ‘substantial risk’ of seriously impeding or prejudicing the course of justice. Criminal proceedings will be considered ‘active’ on charge, not arrest. It will be up to the publisher to assess the risk—the Law Commission does not specify what information can be published although it suggests basic details such as ‘name, age, nationality, ethnicity, religion or immigration status’ will generally create no risk.

Fourth, disrupting legal proceedings by engaging in abusive, threatening or disorderly behaviour.

The Law Commission also proposes making the Attorney General’s decisions to bring contempt proceedings in the public interest subject to judicial review for the first time.

Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, said contempt laws ‘have become fragmented and unclear in the modern communications age.

‘Our review found significant problems with coherence, consistency and clarity across civil, criminal and family courts. These reforms make contempt law fairer and more predictable’.

The recommendations, published this week, will be followed by part two of the Law Commission’s review, ‘Contempt of Court’, next year. In March and in July 2024, the Commission issued consultation papers on the subject.

Issue: 8140 / Categories: Legal News , Contempt
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll