header-logo header-logo

02 June 2023 / Wilson Leung
Issue: 8027 / Categories: Features , Contempt , Criminal , Procedure & practice , International
printer mail-detail

Criminal contempt: the pendulum swings

124245
Wilson Leung examines a recent judgment providing much-needed clarity on the process of bringing committal proceedings in Hong Kong
  • The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal has held that a party does not need to inform or seek the consent of the Secretary for Justice (the equivalent of the attorney general (AG) in other jurisdictions) before commencing committal proceedings in relation to criminal contempt.
  • This decision provides welcome clarification for practitioners in civil litigation.
  • It now appears clear that the litigant may bring such proceedings without having to seek the AG’s consent.

Contempt of court has traditionally been classified as criminal or civil contempt. Civil contempt is concerned with breaches of court orders or undertakings, whereas criminal contempt relates to other acts which seriously impede the administration of justice (A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273).

Despite occasional criticism of the distinction (eg Jennison v Baker [1972] 2 QB 52, p61H), it continues to persist for the time being, at least in England (R

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll