By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

LORD GRIFEITHS. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft thespeech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. I agree with it,and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal, while substituting theSecretary of State for Home Affairs for Mr Baker personally as the subject of thefinding of contempt.LORD DROWNS WILKINSON. My Lords, for the reasons given in the speech ofmy noble and learned friend Lord Woolf I agree that this appeal should bedismissed, while substituting the Secretary of State for Home Affairs for Mr.Baker personally as the subject of the finding contempt.LORD WOOLF. My Lords, this appeal,gives rise to issues of constitutionalimportance. It is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal (1992) 4 All ER97, (1992) 1 QB 270) which by a majority (Lord Donaldson MR and Nolan 1 (McCowan L) dissenting) resersed a judgment of Simon Brown (1992) $ All ER 97)and decided that Mr Kenneth Baker, when acting as Home Secretary, had beenguilty of contempt of court.This was the first time that a minister of the Crown had been found to be incontempt by a court. The finding of contempt was made for not complying with ainjunction granted by Garland) ordering M, who had made a claim for asyhim,which wa rejected by the Home Office, to be returned to this country. The Courtof Appeal did not regard the contempt a reuiring any punishment of Mr. Bakerother than that be pay the costs of the appeal and in so far as they related to the541