British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Huggins, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1637 (22 June 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/1637.html
Cite as: [2006] EWCA Crim 1637
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2 | ||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BURTON
THE COMMON
SERJEANT
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION)
____________________
| R E G I N A | ||
| -v- | ||
| RAPHAEL HUGGINS |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No:
020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- On 13th June 2006 in the Crown Court at Croydon the appellant was found by HHJ Waller to have committed a contempt in the face of the court and was ordered to be detained in a young offender's institution for a period of 28 days. He appeals as of right against both the finding of contempt and the length of detention pursuant to section 13(2)(bb) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The appeal is listed for hearing generally this morning, but we think that the Crown ought to have an opportunity to be heard if the appeal against the finding of contempt is to be pursued and since notice of appeal against that finding was lodged only very recently, we indicated to counsel that we proposed to adjourn that aspect of the matter and to proceed deal today only with the appeal against the period of detention.
- The circumstances of the matter are as follows. On
13th June the appellant's mother was convicted of an offence of importing
cocaine. It appears that the appellant had only recently become aware that his
mother's trial had begun. He was in the public gallery of the court when she
was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and made an emotional outburst in the
presence of the jury. We have the benefit of a transcript of the proceedings
which shows that he shouted words to the following effect:
"[inaudible]. . . to kill your child, yeah, and you wouldn't do it? Threaten to kill your family and you wouldn't do it? I think anyone . .[inaudible]."
- As he made those remarks he raised his arm in the direction of the jury who were still in court. He then left the court, but the judge ordered him to be detained.
- The appellant was duly detained and the judge asked counsel who had appeared for his mother at the trial to act for him. He very properly and very helpfully agreed to do so.
- It may be that it was not entirely clear at that stage what the appellant had shouted out, but the judge clearly thought that he had shouted at the jury in an angry and threatening manner.
- Counsel conveyed the appellant's apologies to the court, but the appellant himself was not invited to address the judge. The judge said that although he himself had a broad back he would not allow the jury to be shouted at in a threatening manner. Immediate and firm action was required. He ordered him to serve a period of 28 days' detention.
- Contempt in the face of the court may take a variety of forms. Judges must of course be vigilant to ensure that the administration of justice is not prejudiced and, in particular, that court staff and members of the public, particularly those serving as jurors, are not exposed to threats or intimidation. Persistent disruption of court proceedings may call for firm action in the form of committal to custody and making threats against the jury which are intended to be, or may reasonably be, taken seriously is undoubtedly a grave matter. It is important, however, to distinguish between cases of that kind and what are no more than intemperate remarks made in the heat of the moment. Everyone understands that emotions sometimes run high and that things may be said or done under the stress of the moment that may appear more serious than they really are.
- We recognise that the judge was best placed to asses the immediate impact of the appellant's conduct. We only have the transcript of what took place, which inevitably cannot capture the full flavour of his actions. However, we think that certain things are reasonably clear. The appellant is a young man (he is aged only 19) and he was under some emotional stress at seeing his mother convicted and sent to prison for a lengthy period. That should not cause any great surprise. Now we have had the benefit of seeing the transcript we do not think that his outburst involved threats against the jury; rather it appears to have been an expression of anger and frustration. Although the jury were no doubt somewhat taken aback by his intervention, there is no reason to think that they felt particularly threatened by it. Finally, there is the fact that after he had had an opportunity to calm down the appellant was willing to apologise for his actions.
- We are inclined to doubt whether the appellant's conduct called for detention much beyond the end of the day, but, in any event, we do not think it called for a period of detention for as long as 28 days. He has now been in custody for nine days. We think that is long enough and we shall make an order that will enable him to be released immediately.
- We therefore set aside the judge's order and substitute for it a period of detention of seven days. That will enable him to be released forthwith. To that extent the appeal is allowed.
- I do not know whether there are any defence costs, Mr Selby? Have you got a representation order?
- MR SELBY: It was granted yesterday.
- LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK: There will be a nil order for recovery of defence costs. We are very grateful to you for your assistance, Mr Selby. Of course, it is open to your client to pursue his appeal in relation to the finding of contempt. He will obviously want to consider what he is going to do in that respect. I think the court ought to be informed within a definite period what his decision is, whether it is going to be pursued or withdrawn. I think we need to know in seven days.
- MR SELBY: Thank you.
LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK: