The decade-long existence of ‘reckless falsity’ in the context of contempt of court has been rejected by the Court of Appeal. In this week’s NLJ, Sam Thomas, Manon Huckle, Oliver Cooke & Richard Marshall discuss the case of Norman and another v Adler and another and its implications for future contempt cases.
Huckle, associate, Cooke, senior associate, and Marshall, partner, at Penningtons Manches Cooper, and Thomas, barrister at 2 Bedford Row, who were the legal team for the respondent police officers in Norman, explain the background to the case. ‘Reckless falsity’ occurred where, ‘if a person had no idea, one way or the other, whether what they were saying was true, then there was not an honest belief in its truth and the maker of the statement risked being found in contempt’. This was enough to land the individual concerned in prison.
However, that state of affairs has now been rejected in Norman. Instead, a contemnor must have ‘knowingly, and so dishonestly, misled the court’.
The authors highlight that Norman is now the leading authority for applications for contempt of court. They share the main takeaways from this important case—read them here.RELATED ARTICLES
7670829bf5ee4855af368e509c9111b6.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=d9eca78_1)
