CONTEMPTS OF COURT. (Hansard, 21 May 1908)

§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool, Exchange

said that, in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law as to contempt of Court, he desired to state the circumstances which had led him to introduce the Bill and the reasons which induced him to look for the general support of the House. It would be within the recollection of the House that a debate took place on the 10th March last on a Resolution moved by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny on the subject of contempt of Court, and that a Resolution condemning the present law and calling for its amending was adopted by a very large majority in the House. The only contentious or controversial matter which occurred during the progress of that debate arose from a reference made, both in the resolution and in the speeches of the bon. Members who proposed and seconded it, to one particular case, viz., that of the Member for North Westmeath, who was at the time undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for contempt of Court. The House was aware that that matter of controversy had now; fortunately disappeared. Mr. Justice Ross, the Judge who sentenced the hon. Member for North Westmeath, had on his own motion, and without any pressure having been put upon him by the Government, or, so far as he was aware, 522 by any person else, made an order releasing the hon. Member, on the ground that his health had suffered from his continued incarceration. He thought that whatever opinions hon. Members on both sides of the House held as to the particular action of the hon. Member for North Westmeath whether they approved or disapproved of his methods, they could all congratulate themselves on the fact that his imprisonment had now been terminated, and he thought they were all agreed that it reflected to the credit of the learned Judge that he took into account all the circumstances of the case and acted in a merciful manner in releasing the hon. Member before the term of his imprisonment had expired. However that might be, it removed the only subject of contention that arose, for during the progress of the debate on the 10th March there appeared to be, as far as he could judge, a unanimity of opinion on both sides of the House that the law in this respect required amendment. He mentioned in the course of his remarks that a Bill had been introduced in the House of Lords as far back as 1883, by the late Lord Selborne, which proposed to amend the law in several distinct respects. That Bill passed through the House of Lords without a division at any of its stages, came down to the House of Commons, was dropped owing to the want of time at the end of the session, and never passed into law. During the progress of the discussion it was suggested chat a Bill enacting the main provisions of that Bill should be introduced, and that appeared to have been received with general favour in the House. The right hon. Gentleman, the junior Member for the University of Dublin, stated that he would have no objection to the provisions of that Bill being enacted provided that it applied not to Ireland alone, but to the whole country, meaning Ireland and England, and that statement was adopted by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland in a speech which he subsequently made, and at the conclusion of his speech he reiterated the view that had met with; the general acceptation of the House, that the law required amendment, and that the provisions to which he had referred were in his opinion unobjectionable. He was happy to say that, having communicated with the highest legal authorities in England, his hon. and learned friend the 523 Attorney-General, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Lord Chancellor, they all agreed that although the matter was not one of very much importance in England, owing to the fact that committals for contempt of court were very rare, scarcely any having occurred in a recent period, the law might with advantage be amended, and that the provisions which he proposed to embody in the Bill would be a distinct improvement of the law. He therefore, with the concurrence of the Attorney-General, asked leave to introduce a Bill which would apply both to England and to Ireland, but not to Scotland, as he understood the law of Scotland on the subject was quite different, and as a matter of fact the Bill of 1883, although it applied to England and Ireland, did not apply to Scotland. The Bill he asked leave to introduce was with the exception of a few verbal changes owing to changes in the law introduced since 1883, a reproduction of the Bill of 1883, except that he omitted certain sections dealing with ecclesiastical offences. The occasion of the Bill of 1883 was the imprisonment of a clergyman of the Church of England, and one of the clauses dealt particularly with that matter. He did not desire to enter into these ecclesiastical matters, or to encumber the Bill by any reference to them, and therefore he had omitted any clauses dealing purely with ecclesiastical matters. There was another clause also dealing only with wards-of-court which he had omitted, because he did not think it necessary, but if there was any desire that it should be introduced he would be prepared to listen with favourable attention to any such proposal. The first clause of the proposed Bill provided that the maximum term of imprisonment to be imposed upon any person for any contempt of Court was three months, and that applied to Courts of all jurisdictions. The next clause dealt with fines and provided that the maximum fine to be imposed should be £500 in a Court of superior jurisdiction, and £20 in a Court of inferior jurisdiction. The third clause provided that no security was to be required by any Court to be given by any person against the continuance or repetition of any contempt of Court, but if there was a continuation or repetition of the contempt the person so offending would be liable to be imprisoned again for three months and to have a fine 524 imposed on him with the same limit as the maximum amount. Other clauses provided that any person in custody at the time of the passing of the Act, if he had been in custody more than three months, was entitled to immediate release, and if a period of three months had not elapsed since his order for imprisonment, then on the expiration of three months from the date of his committal, he should similarly be entitled to release. Another provision of an important character was that, if in any case any person had suffered damage to himself or his estate by reason of any acts of any person guilty of contempt of Court, the Court might in addition to any fine or term of imprisonment, order the person so guilty of contempt to pay such damages as the Court might adjudge. There was a clause dealing with appeals, and providing that every order for imprisonment or imposing a. fine, whether the contempt was of a civil or a criminal nature, was to be the subject of appeal in the same manner as any other order of the High Court. Those were the main provisions of the Bill which he asked leave to introduce. He begged to move.