Key Facts
- •John Jordan played amplified music through a megaphone directed at Inner London Crown Court during a trial.
- •The music disrupted court proceedings, distracting the jury and requiring another courtroom to close windows.
- •Jordan was arrested and brought before HHJ Reid on suspicion of contempt of court.
- •Jordan's defence was that his actions were a show of solidarity, not intended to disrupt the court.
- •HHJ Reid found Jordan in contempt and imposed a 14-day prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, with conditions.
Legal Principles
Contempt in the face of the court is conduct calculated to interfere with or prejudice the due administration of justice.
Attorney General v Davey [2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin)
Specific intent is not required for contempt in the face of the court; deliberate conduct that disrupts proceedings is sufficient.
Solicitor General v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB)
Summary contempt proceedings must be fair, but strict compliance with procedural rules isn't always essential.
Wilkinson v S [2003] EWCA Civ 95
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect freedom of expression and assembly, but these rights are qualified and can be subject to restrictions necessary in a democratic society.
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Jordan's conduct seriously disrupted court proceedings, meeting the threshold for contempt. Specific intent was not required, and the procedure was fair. The penalty was proportionate to the offence and the risk of repetition.