Odger's English Common Law

202 OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
administration of the law. ... A writer may freely criticise
the proceedings of Courts of justice and of individual judges
nay, he is invited to do so, and to do so in a free and fair and
liberal spirit. But it must be without malignity, and not
imputing corrupt and malicious motives.'' *
Acts frequently amount to contempt of Court, and are punishable by
attachment, as where the offender assaults an officer of the Court when
serving its process or carrying out its orders, or destroys the records of the
Court or documentary evidence which should be -brought before it, or
personates a juryman. 2 Again, contempt of Court may be committed
by words, as where the offender publishes a report of proceedings which
the Court has forbidden to be reported, or libels one of the parties before
the commencement of the trial. The result and sometimes the object of
such attacks is to destroy the confidence which Englishmen have in their
law Courts, and thus "to deprive the Court of the! power of doing
that which is the end for which it exists—namely, to administer justice
duly, impartially and with reference solely to the facts judicially brought
before it," and without prepossession or prejudice. 3
Disobedience to a lawful order of the Court is in some cases a criminal
offence 4
; in others it exposes the person in default to merely civil penalties,
such as the dismissal of his action or the striking out of a portion of his
Defence. So any act which is done for the express purpose of rendering
an order of the Court ineffectual is a contempt of Court. 5 Under the
Habeas Corpus Act 6 it is a misdemeanour, punishable with the pains and
penalties of a prcemunire, 7 to unlawfully send any prisoner outside the
realm, so that he would be beyond the protection of the writ of habeas
corpus ; for there is no power in the High Court or in any judge of it to
order the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directed to a person, who at the
date of the order is out of the jurisdiction. 8
Any acts or words, which amount to a contempt of Court,
may, as we have seen, 9 afford ground for a prosecution for
sedition. But they may be also dealt with summarily by the
Court itself. This power is inherent in every Court of Eecord.
It may be exercised either on the application of any person
aggrieved, or by the Court of its own motion. The offender
is usually served with a notice of motion, though in very
<
i Per Fitzgerald, J., in S. v. Sullivan (1868),
2 R. v. Levi/ (1916), 32 Times L. R. 238.
11 Cox, at p. 49.
8 Per cur. in R. v. Parke, [1903] 2 K. B. at p. 436
i In re Freston (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 545.
6 See Adlam v. Colthurst (1867), L. R. 2 Adm. & Eccl 30
6 31 Car. II. o. 2.
' See ante, p. 156.
8
It. v. Pinckney, [1904] 2 K. B. 84.
9 Aide, pp. 155, 157.
—