header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 June 2016
Issue: 7702 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Contempt of court

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

HM Solicitor General v Cox and another [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB), [2016] All ER (D) 03 (Jun)

The Divisional Court found the respondents in contempt of court for having taken photographs in court, including during a sentencing hearing, and having published them on Facebook. It provided guidance on the actus reus and mens rea for contempt of court in the illegal taking and publication of photographs in court.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
TheGazette LogoClick to know more
Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
Read All
Pro Bono Week marks silver jubilee
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
NLJ this week: Pro bono’s silver lining
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
NLJ this week: Wrong expert, costly exit
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
NLJ this week: Time for judges to break their silence?
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
NLJ this week: Discounted damages, different costs
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll