Delay in contempt of court reform noted

Recommendations two decades ago that legislation should be introduced to replace the common law offence of contempt of court have met with no response, according to the Law Reform Commission.

It its latest publication, the commission notes the changes have not occurred despite the fact the courts have reiterated the law is in need of reform. A common law offence is one which is based on previous rulings by the courts rather than a particular piece of legislation.

The commission has published a consultative paper on contempt of court and asked for interested parties to submit their views.

There are currently two categories of contempt of court – civil and criminal – with the latter being when a person deliberately disrupts court proceedings, makes untrue allegations about a court or judge, or publishes material about a pending court case.

Civil contempt arises when, for example, a person refuses to comply with a court order and states that he or she will continue to do so.

The commission has asked whether the distinction between civil and criminal contempt should be maintained.

While a person can be imprisoned for both categories of contempt, it is seen as punitive in the case of criminal contempt, and coercive in the case of civil contempt.

Journalists’ sources

The commission says the law remains unclear in relation to journalists who refuse to comply with a court order to disclose their sources.

In 1996 the European Court of Human Rights, in Goodwin vs United Kingdom, found that a disclosure order could only be justified by an "overriding requirement of the public interest. The Irish courts have since considered the Goodwin case, including in Mahon vs Keena and Kennedy, which involved The Irish Times. That case showed that the courts will "carefully balance" the interest of journalists protecting their sources, and the proper administration of justice, the commission paper said.