contempt of court (Re: s/forget passphrase for/cause permanent destruction of/ , Re: Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt)

[Graham]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 22 Aug 2002 4:41 pm, Adam Back wrote:

> Contempt of court ought to be scrapped, people should be considered
> innocent until proven guilty.

In most cases they are (even if the innocence is ignored by many).  But=20
there has to be a way of Courts giving instructions while they attempt=20
to sort out problems between parties, and then taking an appropriate=20
action when the instruction was ignored.

To take a real live case, party A has taken party B to court to decide=20
the ownership of a disputed piece of land.  On that land is a high=20
hedge.  Hearing that party B intended to cut down the hedge, party A=20
went to court to get an injunction against cutting down the hedge and=20
it was granted.  The court effectively gave instructions for neither=20
party to do anything while the matter was being decided.

Party B took heavy equipment on the land to cut down the hedge after the=20
injunction was served.  They had defied the court.  How are they to be=20
brought to task then if not for contempt of court, for DELIBERATELY=20
defying the court.

Neither party was "guilty" or "innocent" over the original problem (the=20
faults probably lie on both sides) but when the court issued that=20
injunction in order take time to sort it out, the court had the=20
expectation that it would be adhered to.  By defying the injunction,=20
Party B placed themselves in a position in which they were definitely=20
the guilty party, a position which resulted in their imprisonment.

And quite right too.
- --=20

Graham
GPG Key ID: E935DB9D

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please sign and encrypt for internet privacy

iD8DBQE9ZSbnIwtBZOk1250RAsAJAJ9Tl32H/ljyHhJitrsnbUfurZoBPgCeLAot
Ab+yKPhHxcUILMzvvyjqElM=3D
=3DVF94
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----