Court Upholds Contempt Finding in Disruptive Behavior Case: Analysis of Legal Principles and Human Rights Compatibility

Citation: [2024] EWCA Crim 229
Judgment on


The case of R v John Jordan ([2024] EWCA Crim 229) involves an appeal against a finding of contempt of court and the subsequent penalty imposed. The case explores the application of legal principles related to contempt in the face of the court, procedural fairness, the threshold of seriousness for contempt, intent, and compatibility with human rights, specifically the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article provides an analysis of the case law, identifying key legal principles and linking them to relevant parts of the case summary.

Key Facts

John Jordan was found in contempt of court after playing loud music outside a courtroom during an ongoing trial, with intent to disrupt proceedings. Despite Jordan’s claim of solidarity with defendants in an unrelated case, the judge found the action created a serious interference with the administration of justice. Jordan challenged the finding and penalty, arguing issues of seriousness, specific intent, fairness, incompatibility with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, and the penalty’s proportionality.

Contempt in the Face of the Court

The court reaffirmed contempt of court as a protection of the due administration of justice. Conduct that creates a real risk of interference can constitute contempt, regardless of actual impediment or prejudice. Thus, specific intent to disrupt isn’t required for liability, only deliberate conduct in breach of court order or law.

Threshold of Seriousness for Contempt

The court established that only behavior creating a serious interference with justice can amount to contempt, aligning with the principle that the administration of justice is vital to upholding the rule of law.

Procedural Fairness and Impartiality

The proceedings followed the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, ensuring fairness under common law and the ECHR. The appellant’s arguments regarding a lack of impartiality and inadequate opportunity to prepare a defense were rejected. The court held that it’s not inherently unfair for a judge who observed the contempt to adjudicate the matter.

Human Rights: Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR

The court determined that contempt proceedings did not necessarily interfere with or restrict freedom of expression or assembly. If it did, the restriction would be justified under the second paragraph of each article to protect the administration of justice.


The court dismissed the appeal, holding that:

  1. The summary procedure and contempt finding were fair and complied with procedural standards.
  2. Specific intent was not required for contempt liability.
  3. The threshold for contempt’s seriousness was met by Jordan’s conduct.
  4. The penalty, including its conditional suspension, was proportionate and necessary to prevent future disruption.
  5. The proceedings and contempt finding were compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, necessary for the greater public interest.


The EWCA Criminal Division in R v John Jordan ([2024] EWCA Crim 229) has upheld the principle that actions interfering seriously with the due administration of justice may constitute contempt of court. The court iterated that specific intent is not required for a finding of contempt, provided the conduct is deliberate and contravenes known court orders or criminal law. The case reflects the balance between maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings and individual freedoms, emphasizing that the exercise of rights must not compromise the administration of justice. This judgment provides clarity on the law surrounding contempt in the face of the court and reinforces the judiciary’s authority to preserve court propriety and ensure fair trial processes.

Related Summaries