I am 'charged' with contempt of court in defamation injunction proceedings, which I strenuously deny.
However, little did I know, that the actions I took 'back then' would be the only avenue available to me, to ensure that the truth about what happened to me in both former employment and in tribunal proceedings, would be known.
I did not expect my equality and employment rights to be denied in the manners that they have, and 'contempt of court' is my only avenue to justice in Northern Ireland. Shameful.
I think the Law Commission’s suggestions for ‘tidying up’ the law of contempt are to welcomed – especially their suggestion that contempt of court should be categorised ‘according to the behaviour it involved.’ They go on to say that contempt of court could be remote from the courtroom: for example, it could involve ‘publishing confidential trial material online.’ This is where I feel we need to be wary: a judge could use a contempt of court order to protect themselves from complaints about their handling of a trial or tribunal hearing.
For example, a judge asked by someone appealing a decision of the ICO what the focus of a future tribunal hearing, will be, says it will focus solely on whether an ‘error in law’ has been committed by the ICO and not the origin of a dispute with a third party. Then at the hearing, the judge’s 1st question is about the origin of the dispute and he ignores the issue of an error in law for most of the remainder of the hearing. If the appellant were to then obtain a recording of the hearing, the judge would be able to threaten him with ‘contempt of court’ order, if he were to publish any part of what is ‘confidential trial/hearing online,’
I think the contempt rule should be ‘categorised according to the behaviour involved’ but what we also need to bear in mind is the danger that judges will use contempt of court to unfairly protect themselves and avoid reputational damage.
I am 'charged' with contempt of court in defamation injunction proceedings, which I strenuously deny.
However, little did I know, that the actions I took 'back then' would be the only avenue available to me, to ensure that the truth about what happened to me in both former employment and in tribunal proceedings, would be known.
I did not expect my equality and employment rights to be denied in the manners that they have, and 'contempt of court' is my only avenue to justice in Northern Ireland. Shameful.
I think the Law Commission’s suggestions for ‘tidying up’ the law of contempt are to welcomed – especially their suggestion that contempt of court should be categorised ‘according to the behaviour it involved.’ They go on to say that contempt of court could be remote from the courtroom: for example, it could involve ‘publishing confidential trial material online.’ This is where I feel we need to be wary: a judge could use a contempt of court order to protect themselves from complaints about their handling of a trial or tribunal hearing.
For example, a judge asked by someone appealing a decision of the ICO what the focus of a future tribunal hearing, will be, says it will focus solely on whether an ‘error in law’ has been committed by the ICO and not the origin of a dispute with a third party. Then at the hearing, the judge’s 1st question is about the origin of the dispute and he ignores the issue of an error in law for most of the remainder of the hearing. If the appellant were to then obtain a recording of the hearing, the judge would be able to threaten him with ‘contempt of court’ order, if he were to publish any part of what is ‘confidential trial/hearing online,’
I think the contempt rule should be ‘categorised according to the behaviour involved’ but what we also need to bear in mind is the danger that judges will use contempt of court to unfairly protect themselves and avoid reputational damage.