By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

proceedings brought against him, in the court below. The Court of Appeal did notallow the appeal of M against the dismissal of his application that otherrespondents, including the Home Office, should also be found guilty of contemptMr Kentridge QC in his argument on behalf of M, made in clear that he wouldonly seek to rely on a cross – appeal against the decision as to the Home Officeif, countrary to his primary contention, the decidion of the majority of the Court ofAppeal was wrong in relating to the responsibility of Mr. Baker.Mr Richards submits on behalf of the Home Office and on behalf of Mr Baker thatneither the Crown in general, nor a department of state nor a minister of theCrown, acting in his capacity as such, are amenable to proceedings in contempt.It is a necessary part of that submission that the courts also have no power togrant injunctions directed to such bodies and that the order which was made byGarland), which it was held by Simon Brown I as well as the Court of Appeal thatMr. Baker had contravened, was made without jurisdiction.When advancing these submissions Mr. Richards stressed that it was no part ofhis case that the Crown or uninsless are above the law or that ministers are ableto rely on their office so as to evade liability for wrongdoing. He accepted that if aminister acted in disregard of the law as declared by the courts, or otherwise wasengaged in wrongdoing he would be acting outside his authority as a ministerand so would expose himself to a personal liability for his wrongdoing.The fact that these issue have only now arisen for decision by the courts isconfirmation that in ordinary circumstances ministers of the Crown andgovernment departments invariably scrupulously observe decisions o the coarts.542