Law of Contempt of Court in Ireland
The law of contempt of court in Ireland is an essential mechanism designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process and ensure the proper administration of justice. It is paramount that the authority of the courts be recognised and respected if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained, and to ensure the rule of law. Penalisation of contempt is necessary, as it was once put, “in order to maintain the decency and order of judicial proceedings.”
Contempt in the courtroom or its environs is a long-standing concept, known as “contempt in the face of the court” or in facie curiae. Common forms of contempt in the face of the court include abusive or disruptive behaviour in the courtroom, behaviour that takes the form of “scandalising” the court.
Other forms of contempt, such as the sub judice rule (the limitation of publication of information while a case is under judgment), refer to conduct away from the courtroom. Sub judice traditionally related to legacy media such as newspaper, radio and television reporting, but in recent years the courts have been confronted with the growing phenomenon of unlawful reporting on social media, most notoriously in the aftermath of the Anna Kriegel murder trial.
One of the most controversial aspects of the offence of contempt in facie curiae is the immediacy in which it is normally dealt with, with the presiding judge summarily disposing of the matter. Persons in contempt because of disruptive behaviour are dealt with on the spot, or at later in the day. Judges often call for disruptive parties to be removed from the court room, and often the disrupter is given the opportunity to “cool off”. The disrupter is usually asked to return later in the day and asked whether they wish to apologise for their earlier behaviour. Often multiple opportunities are given to a recalcitrant party to apologise, and if they continue to refuse, the judge will normally explain to them how they are in contempt, before proceeding to sentencing, which often takes the form of imprisonment.
This immediacy has caused difficulty, in that the disrupter often demands that a separate hearing be heard with a different judge, so they can call the original judge as a witness, to be cross examined. The European Court of Human Rights in Kyprianou v. Cyprus (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 27 suggested that a court cannot be the trier of fact where the allegation of contempt involves comments directed against the presiding judge, or which may be thought to be personally offensive to them. This is an undesirable and unacceptable solution, in that it would undermine the authority of the court and judiciary and cause unnecessary replication of proceedings, as dragging out the contempt proceedings to be heard by another judge would mean “a lengthy interruption to the main proceedings, thereby paralysing the court for a time, and indirectly impeding the speed and efficiency with which justice is administered”. Instead, the judiciary have taken the view that the enforcement of order in a court room is to be immediate. The presiding judge must remain in control of the proceedings.
Another difficulty is that there is little statutory guidance in what amounts to contempt, and how it should be punished. For example, Order 44 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that those in contempt of a court order can be attached (arrested) and committed to jail, but it doesn’t specify what “contempt” is. The Law Reform Commission published a Consultation on Contempt of Court in July 1991 under which it recommended legislative codification on the law in this area, but as of 2024 the closest we have seen to codification is the Contempt of Court Bill 2017, which floundered amid governmental change.
This uncertainty has led to inconsistency and arguably undermines the confidence the public, as well as legal practitioners, prosecutors and other officers of the court, have in the system. As there is no precise statutory definition of what disruptive behaviour is, contempt is dealt with on a case-by-case basis and very much depends on the attitude and personality of the judge. While whispering or a phone beeping during proceedings may cause no more than a raised eyebrow in some courts, it could lead to an angry dressing down or even a fine in others. O’ Connell J. in the Supreme Court decision of Walsh v. Minister for Justice (2019) counselled that “there is often merit in not reacting to every slight and each instance of bad behaviour. Court can be a stressful experience for all participants – particularly for those who are attending for the first time, or those whose home, livelihood, family structure, or some other important aspect of their life may be threatened in the proceedings. It is often wise to allow some things to pass.”
Sentencing has also caused some concern, with allegations of disproportionality from some quarters, particularly in those cases where the disrupter refuses to purge their contempt. While most prison sentences passed for contempt are short, a few days or weeks, and are rare, potentially the sentence for contempt is unlimited imprisonment, which can cause an embarrassing standoff where the sentenced refuses to purge his contempt, as recent high-profile cases show.
In our various witness and courtroom skills courses, La Touche Training stresses the importance of respecting the judicial process to delegates and ensure that they understand what contempt of court is, and the possible consequences for obstructing the administration of justice. Delegates are given thorough instruction on how to conduct themselves appropriately in the courthouse, both in and out of the witness box, so as not to cause “outrage or disturbance”.
To learn more about our suite of courses, please see below:
- Advanced Workshop for Expert Witnesses
- Courtroom Skills
- Courtroom and Cross Examination Skills
- Expert Witness Training Programme
For further information please visit the above listed courses or contact us directly.
Author: Alex Nichol, Solicitor, BCL, LLM, Dip Corp. and La Touche Training Program Developer and Trainer
