温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/solicitor-general-v-holmes
点击访问原文链接

Solicitor General v Holmes - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Solicitor General v Holmes - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Solicitor General v Holmes Reference: [2019] EWHC 1483 (Admin)

Court: Divisional Court

Judge: Coulson LJ, Spencer J

Date of judgment: 13 Jun 2019 Summary: Contempt in the face of the court – guidance where committal pursued in the Divisional Court

Download: Download this judgment

Appearances: Aidan Eardley KC (Applicant) 

Instructing Solicitors: Treasury Solicitor for the Applicant; Mohammed Hussain Solicitors for the Respondent

Facts The Solicitor General sought the committal of the Respondent in relation to words allegedly shouted from the public gallery during a criminal trial at Bradford Crown Court which caused the trial to be aborted.

Issue What are the applicable rules where committal is sought in the Divisional Court in relation to an alleged contempt in the face of the Crown Court?

Is permission required, and if so, what is the test for permission and was it satisfied in this case?

Held The drafting of the present CPR 81 is infelicitous but, where committal is sought in the Divisional Court in relation to an alleged contempt committed in the face of the Crown Court, CPR 81 Section III applies: the wording of CPR 81.12(1), which falls within that Section, is intended to preserve the concurrent jurisdiction of the lower court to deal with such contempts, not to exclude the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. It follows that the permission of the Divisional Court is required: CPR 81.12(3) and 81.13(1)(e). To obtain permission,  the Law Officers must show at least a prima facie case and further that it is in the public interest that a committal application should be made. Permission should be granted in the present case.

This was an exceptional and particularly serious case where the judge was quite right to refer the matter to the Attorney General. It should not be thought that such a course should become the preferred approach generally. In most situations, the criminal court should deal with the matter, following the procedure in Part 48 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

Comment This is another case in which difficulties have emerged over the drafting of CPR Part 81 (see also Simmonds v Pearce [2018] 1 WLR 1849). The Court’s guidance will be welcomed by practitioners.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* NameThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录