header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 July 2020 / David Burrows
Issue: 7894 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Contempt
printer mail-detail

Entering the contempt maze

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
23828
David Burrows navigates through a labyrinth of legal aid provisions & tackles the much misunderstood ‘contempt’
  • Contempt: a maze of terminology & legal aid.
  • Clarity—or not—and the procedure for contempt.

Tom Bingham (nom de plume of Lord Bingham) states his first rule of the Rule of Law (title of his 2004 lecture, and a 2011 Penguin paperback) as that all laws should be ascertainable, clear and accessible. Anyone threatened with imprisonment for ‘contempt of court’—itself a misleading title, which many judges say is inappropriate—will find that the law is anything but clear; and a defendant who wants legal aid for representation for defence (ie not to be sent to prison) will find the law is positively opaque.

On 1 May 2020 replies to a consultation concluded on ‘Proposed rule changes relating to contempt of court; redraft of CPR Part 81’ (https://bit.ly/37cbN6K); that is to amend the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998) to modernise its terminology and to clarify some of its procedure.

I responded

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll