Michael Zander QC considers an unusual judicial decision
Generally the judges do not take it upon themselves to rewrite a statute on the basis that Parliament obviously meant something different from what the statute said. But when common sense demands it, some judges, some of the time, will do what the situation requires. OB v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2012] EWCA Crim 901 was such a case.
On 1 February 2012, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeal of OB against his committal to prison for contempt of court. OB sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and asked the court to certify that the decision involved a point of law of general public importance. The court was minded to refuse leave but to certify that there were two points of general importance in its decision. At that point, however, the Registrar of Criminal Appeals raised a concern as to whether the right of appeal to the Supreme Court still existed in contempt of court cases.
The Administration
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
