Committals for contempt in CoP must be held in public, say senior judges

Committals for contempt of court including those in the Court of Protection should be held in public, senior judges have said in practice guidance.

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, and Sir James Munby, the President of both the Family Division and the Court of Protection, said: “It is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice in England and Wales that applications for committal for contempt should be heard and decided in public, that is, in open court.

“This principle applies as much to committal applications in the Court of Protection…. as to committal applications in any other Division of the High Court.”

The guidance said the discretionary powers vested in the Court of Protection and the Family Division (the latter when the application arises out of proceedings relating to a child) to hear a committal application in private “should be exercised only in exceptional cases where it is necessary in the interests of justice”.

It added: “The fact that the committal application is being made in the Court of Protection or in the Family Division in proceedings relating to a child does not of itself justify the application being heard in private.

“Moreover the fact that the hearing of the committal application may involve the disclosure of material which ought not to be published does not of itself justify hearing the application in private if such publication can be restrained by an appropriate order.”

The guidance continued: “If, in an exceptional case, a committal application is heard in private and the court finds that a person has committed a contempt of court it must state in public…:

(a) the name of that person;

(b) in general terms the nature of the contempt of court in respect of which the committal order [committal order for this purpose includes a suspended committal order] is being made; and

(c) the punishment being imposed.

“This is mandatory; there are no exceptions. There are never any circumstances in which anyone may be committed to custody without these matters being publicly stated.”

The guidance said that committal applications in the Court of Protection or the Family Division should at the outset be listed and heard in public.

“Whenever the court decides to exercise its discretion to sit in private the judge should, before continuing the hearing in private, give a judgment in public setting out the reasons for doing so. At the conclusion of any hearing in private the judge should sit in public to comply with the requirements [for publication].”

Lord Judge and Sir James also said that in every case in which a committal order or a suspended committal order is made the judge should take appropriate steps to ensure that that as soon as reasonably practicable:

  • a transcript is prepared at public expense of the judgment;
  • every judgment is published on the BAILII website; and
  • upon payment of any appropriate charge that may be required a copy of any such judgment is made available to any person who requests a copy.

Publication of the guidance comes just a day after the Justice Secretary called on Sir James to extend the review of transparency into the family courts to the Court of Protection.

It also follows widespread newspaper coverage of the case of a woman who was said to have been jailed for contempt of court for disobeying court orders relating to her father.