Contempt of Court (Vict.)—County Court—Wilfully insulting judge in court—Defence counsel's address to jury in criminal case—Duty of counsel—County Court Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 54A.
Decision
May 15. THE COURT delivered the following written judgement:- This appeal by special leave arises out of the conviction of the appellant for contempt under s. 54A(1)(a) of the County Court Act 1958 (Vict.), as amended, by a judge of the County Court, for wilfully insulting that judge in the course of an address to the jury on behalf of the appellant's client in a criminal trial for conspiracy in which the appellant's client was one of three accused. A fine of $500 was imposed in respect of the conviction. In proceedings for relief by way of certiorari in the Supreme Court of Victoria, King J. quashed the imposition of the fine on the ground that the County Court judge failed to provide an adequate opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence or advance argument on the issue of penalty. The order nisi, which also sought to challenge the conviction itself, was otherwise discharged. No order for costs was made. In the appeal to this Court the appellant seeks to challenge the conviction. (at p685)
2. In the trial the appellant represented an accused named Paul. The co-accused were represented by other counsel. In the course of his address to the jury the appellant made certain remarks concerning the role of a judge in a criminal trial, drawing a distinction between the judge's comments on questions of law and his comment on questions of fact, informing the jury that they were not bound to accept his Honour's views on the facts and inviting them to consider his views on the facts with some care because, in the appellant's view, the judge had shown a strong disposition to favour the prosecution case against the case the appellant had advanced on behalf of his client. (at p686)
3. On the following day the judge raised the question whether he should discharge the jury in view of the appellant's remarks. The judge was concerned that the remarks might have a tendency to react adversely in the minds of the jury against the appellant's client and that a warning to the jury to disregard them might have the effect of underlining the incident without removing the tendency. It seems that all the counsel appearing in the case expressed the view that there was no need to discharge the jury. However, his Honour discharged the jury without verdict and indicated that he would hear submissions on behalf of the appellant on the following day as to why he should not be found guilty of contempt of court. (at p686)
4. On the following day the appellant was represented by Mr. Berkeley Q.C. The judge did not distinctly formulate a specific charge of contempt.…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Lewis v Ogden
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lewis v Ogden [1984] HCA 28
Case
[1984] HCA 28
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Lewis v Ogden* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Lewis, and the respondent, Ogden. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent, Ogden, had been guilty of contempt of court by publishing certain material that was alleged to be prejudicial to the fair trial of a criminal proceeding. Specifically, the court had to determine if Ogden's actions constituted a contempt of court under the relevant provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) or at common law.
The High Court considered the principles governing contempt of court, particularly in relation to publications that could prejudice criminal proceedings. The court analysed the nature of the material published by Ogden and its potential impact on the jury's ability to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. The judges applied established legal tests for determining whether a publication created a real risk of prejudice.
The High Court found that Ogden was not guilty of contempt of court. The court held that the material published did not create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the fair trial of the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.