London Calling:? Court of Appeal raises the bar for contempt of court

Background

The appellants sought to commit two police officers for contempt of court on the grounds that they knowingly or recklessly misled the Crown Court when applying for search warrants. The appellants relied on the case of Berry Piling Systems Ltd in which Akenhead J considered, in the context of a statement subject to a statement of truth, that the wording of CPR part 32.14 in relation to the consequences of false statements would cover both a statement made by a person who knew it to be untrue and a person who was reckless as to whether the statement was true or not.

Decision

The Court of Appeal considered that "The purpose of contempt proceedings is not to punish incompetence or errors of judgment" although acknowledged the comments made by the Judge in the lower court that there could be a case where an omission is so glaring as to raise an irresistible inference of intent to mislead the court.

However, the practical starting point when considering permission to bring proceedings for contempt in the public interest is whether there is a strong case (capable of being proved to the criminal standard) that the relevant individual made a statement to the court knowing it to be untrue and knowing that it would be relied upon by the court. The court stated that "It is not sufficient to say that the contemnor did not care whether what he said was true or not. It must first be proved to the requisite standard that he knew that he did not know whether what he said was true or not."

In light of the above, the court determined that there was no strong case of contempt against the police officers.

Comment

This case should give some comfort to individuals providing evidence to the court as contempt of court proceedings will generally not be brought unless an individual knows a statement to be untrue and that it would be relied on by the court. However, witnesses should still be vigilant and ensure that the facts that they present to the court are true.

Norman (et al) v Adler (et al) [2023] EWCA Civ 785

Brian Perrott / Lee Forsyth