Someone asked me if his criticism of the work of the CPIB for a case now being heard in court could be unlawful. I searched for the definition of "contempt of court" and found this explanation:
Contempt of court is a court order which in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority. Often referred to simply as "contempt," such as a person "held in contempt," it is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.
To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
- Existence of a lawful order
- The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
- The potential contemnor's ability to comply
- The potential contemnor's failure to comply
Conclusion: for the act to be unlawful, the court must give an order that the criticism of the CPIB is deemed to be "publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial" and, after the order has been given, the party continue to ignore it.
Do you agree with my interpretation?
:.
0 comments:
Post a Comment