header-logo header-logo

Clarity sought on contempt of court

19 November 2025
Issue: 8140 / Categories: Legal News , Contempt
printer mail-detail
Contempt of court laws would be split into four distinct categories, under Law Commission recommendations to make them fit for the digital age

Currently, more than 100 people are sent to prison each year for contempt of court. However, contempt also exists in civil law, which creates confusion, and the Law Commission argues the current structure is out of date and lacks clarity. Instead, it recommends there be four forms of contempt.

First, general contempt, where a person deliberately interferes with the administration of justice in a ‘non-trivial way’, or creates a ‘substantial risk’ of doing so.

Second, breach of court order or undertaking, where the person was aware the breach would be a contempt. Third, publishing material while proceedings are active, which creates a ‘substantial risk’ of seriously impeding or prejudicing the course of justice. Criminal proceedings will be considered ‘active’ on charge, not arrest. It will be up to the publisher to assess the risk—the Law Commission does not specify what information can be published although it suggests basic details such as ‘name, age, nationality, ethnicity, religion or immigration status’ will generally create no risk.

Fourth, disrupting legal proceedings by engaging in abusive, threatening or disorderly behaviour.

The Law Commission also proposes making the Attorney General’s decisions to bring contempt proceedings in the public interest subject to judicial review for the first time.

Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, said contempt laws ‘have become fragmented and unclear in the modern communications age.

‘Our review found significant problems with coherence, consistency and clarity across civil, criminal and family courts. These reforms make contempt law fairer and more predictable’.

The recommendations, published this week, will be followed by part two of the Law Commission’s review, ‘Contempt of Court’, next year. In March and in July 2024, the Commission issued consultation papers on the subject.

Issue: 8140 / Categories: Legal News , Contempt
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll