[3] There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order.
[5] In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain information can constitute contempt of the court.
[6] Direct contempt is an unacceptable act in the presence of the judge (in facie curiae), and generally begins with a warning; it may be accompanied by the immediate imposition of a punishment.
[11] In 1888, Louis de Souza, a young barrister in British Guiana was fined $500 and imprisoned for six months for contempt of court for publicly criticising judicial decisions.
[17] Valence Gale, a Barbadian journalist, wrote passionately about the events leading up De Souza's death.
[18][19] One of his articles is credited with paving the way for the passage of Barbados' Contempt of Court Act 1891,[18] the first of many across the West Indies.
In addition, certain appeal boards are given the statutory authority for contempt by them (e.g., Residential Care Home, Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation, Air Pollution Control, etc.).
Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behaviour toward the judge or magistrates while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding, may be prosecuted as "direct" contempt.
The term "direct" means that the court itself cites the person in contempt by describing the behaviour observed on the record.
Reporting on contempt of court, the Law Commission commented that "punishment of an advocate for what he or she says in court, whether a criticism of the judge or a prosecutor, amounts to an interference with his or her rights under article 10 of the ECHR" and that such limits must be "prescribed by law" and be "necessary in a democratic society",[22] citing Nikula v Finland.
Where it is not necessary to be so urgent, or where indirect contempt has taken place the Attorney General can intervene and the Crown Prosecution Service will institute criminal proceedings on his behalf before a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
Because she then shared this information with the other jurors, the judge stated that she had compromised the defendant's right to a fair trial and the prosecution was abandoned.
Upon contempt being admitted or proved the (invariably) District Judge (sitting as a magistrate) may order committal to prison for a maximum of one month, impose a fine of up to £2,500, or both.
[25] It will not be contempt according to section 10 of the Act for a journalist to refuse to disclose his sources, unless the court has considered the evidence available and determined that the information is "necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime".
Section 2 of the Act defines and limits the previous common law definition of contempt (which was previously based upon a presumption that any conduct could be treated as contempt, regardless of intent), to only instances where there can be proved an intent to cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice (i.e./e.g., the conduct of a trial).
However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.
In federal and most state courts, the burden of proof for civil contempt is clear and convincing evidence, a lower standard than in criminal cases.
[31] Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, and "the requirement of a jury does not apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States.'"
The records of "alleged civil contempors" are not listed in the Federal Register as being in the system leading to a potential claim for damages under The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(I).
In particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a dissent, "It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury.