header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Entering the contempt maze

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
09 July 2020 / David Burrows
Issue: 7894 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Contempt
printer mail-detail
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
CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll