Contempt of Court

In 2003, the Attorney General instructed the Legislative Drafting Department to prepare a bill that would clearly set out the law on contempt of court. A draft bill was prepared in 2004, and in 2005, it was referred to the Law Reform Commission (the “Commission”) for more detailed research and analysis.
The goal of this reform was to ensure the legal process would remain fair and honest, while also protecting the rights of individuals to a fair trial and freedom of speech.

The Commission conducted the review in three stages:
1. contempt in the face of the court (actions that disrupt court proceedings or showed disrespect in court);
2. contempt by publication (such as media reports that might affect a trial); and
3. contempt by disobedience to a court order.

Three consultation papers were produced.

The first consultation paper, titled “Contempt of Court”, was published on 10th January, 2014, and examined whether the law of contempt in the face of the court should remain governed by common law, be codified, or be replaced by separate statutory offence. It also explored related questions
concerning publication-based contempt, including the use of cameras or recording devices in court, when proceedings should be treated as becoming and ceasing to be active, and whether to introduce a core definition of contempt by publication through legislation.

The second consultation paper, titled “Contempt of Court – The Sub Judice Rule”, was published on 21st March, 2014, and focused on the “sub judice rule”, which limits public commentary on ongoing legal proceedings. It also examined how to balance the public’s right to freedom of expression with the need for a fair trial.

The third consultation paper, titled “Contempt of Court”, was published on 15th July, 2016, and proposed new laws to ensure fair contempt proceedings that complied with human rights and the Criminal Procedure Code. It supported retaining the Court’s power to quickly handle contempt cases while introducing clearer safeguards for persons accused of contempt, including a statutory offence prohibiting unauthorised photography, video recording, or broadcasting of court proceedings.

The Commission’s final report, titled “Contempt of Court”, recommended that most contempt law should remain under common law to allow flexibility and development. 

Key recommendations included:

 a) no changes to the substantive law of contempt in the face of the court, as the category is unclear and overlaps with statutory offences;                                     b)restricting and codifying the strict responsibility rule based on the UK Contempt of Court Act 1981, adapted for local procedures; 
 c) no changes to juror contempt, given existing procedural safeguards;
 d) retaining contempt by scandalising the court, despite its abolition in the UK;
 e) no changes to the law on acts interfering with the course of justice;
 f) no changes to civil contempt (failure to comply with court orders or undertakings); 
 g) introducing a provision to ensure courts afford alleged contemnors protections akin to section 7 of the Bill of Rights before considering guilt, and recommending maximum penalties for common law contempt;
 h) distinguishing between statutory contempt-like offences that bypass the Criminal Procedure Code (which should comply with section 7 of the Bill of Rights) and those governed by the Code, aligning the former accordingly; and
 i) confirming the Grand Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over contempts related to tribunals with court-like characteristics, with no changes proposed.

The Final Report was submitted to the Attorney General on 3rd April, 2020. It was supported by the Contempt of Court Bill, 2020, and the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 2020. Both Bills were passed by Parliament on 14th December, 2022, received assent on 29th December, 2022, and came into force on 29th December, 2022.