Law - Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court. It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court. As explained in the People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill, "there are essentially two types of contempt: being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge and willful failure to obey an order of the court. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions. When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called "found" or "held in contempt"; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.

A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.

Strict Liability Rule

Strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by her or his acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent. The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.

A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.

Contempt of Court Case 

Four national newspaper groups have today apologized for publishing false allegations about Robert Murat and two other people over claims they were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, and agreed to pay £600,000 in libel damages. In a statement read out in the high court, News International, Mirror Group Newspapers, Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers apologized to Murat, an official suspect in the McCann case, and two others, and acknowledged making "false claims" about them. Eleven daily and Sunday titles published by the four groups are expected to run apologies to Murat and the two others tomorrow and at the weekend.

In total, it is understood that the four newspaper groups will pay out at least £800,000 in damages: £600,000 to Murat and six-figure sums to the two other claimants. The apologies and damages were claimed from Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated's Daily Mail, London Evening Standard and Metro; MGN's Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Daily Record; and News International's Sun and News of the World. The court heard that the papers have in excess of 15 million readers and that between them almost 100 articles were written mentioning either Murat or the two other claimants, Sergey Malinka and Mikala Walczuch.

I think the outcome was right as the newspapers published false allegations regarding innocent people which can damage there reputations which is why they should of been punished for there actions. The outcome I feel was reasonable and justified as the newspapers who published the stories at the time made a lot of money out of it which is why it was only right to reward the victims with a money based reward.