Closes 8 Nov 2024
This service needs cookies enabled.
We provisionally propose that the test for whether a body is a “court” for the purposes of contempt should be whether it is exercising the judicial power of the state.
Do consultees agree?
We provisionally propose that the test for whether a body is a “court” for the purposes of contempt should be accompanied by a non-exhaustive list of the bodies that are considered “courts”.
We provisionally propose that, if the test for whether a body is protected by the law of contempt is whether it is exercising the judicial power of the state, the following should be included in a non-exhaustive list of the bodies that have contempt protection:
(1) all superior courts of record, including the High Court, Court of Appeal, Crown Court, Court of Protection, the Upper Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and the Court Martial Appeal Court.
(2) the following inferior courts: the county court, the family court, coroners’ courts, magistrates’ courts, consistory courts, election court, the Service Civilian Court, the Summary Appeal Court and the Court Martial.
(3) all chambers of the First-tier Tribunal;
(4) the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales); and
(5) the Parole Board for England and Wales.
Should any other inferior courts, tribunals or other bodies be included in a list? If so, which ones?
We provisionally propose that the test for whether a devolved Welsh tribunal is a “court” for the purposes of contempt should be whether it is exercising the judicial power of the state.
We provisionally propose that, if the test for whether a devolved Welsh tribunal is protected by the law of contempt is whether it is exercising the judicial power of the state, then all chambers of a First-tier Tribunal for Wales (if created) should be included in a non-exhaustive list of the bodies that have contempt protection.
Is there a need for the Government to consider reviewing the powers of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to make civil restraint orders?
Should superior courts have the power to refer conduct that apparently constitutes contempt to the High Court?
We provisionally propose that all protected inferior courts, tribunals and other bodies should have the following powers:
(1) the power to the deal with general contempt by conduct other than publication and contempt by breach of order, but not to deal with general contempt by publication or contempt by publication when proceedings are active; and
(2) the power to refer any type of contempt to the High Court, or, in the case of the First-tier Tribunal and the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales), to the Upper Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal respectively.
Do consultees consider that any specific protected inferior courts, tribunals or other bodies should be treated differently with respect to their powers? If so, why?
We provisionally propose that all protected devolved tribunals in Wales should have the same powers as protected tribunals in England and protected reserved tribunals.
