contempt of court
MS
ms at PyroSkin.com
Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:58:09 +0100
--=====================_53239384==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:47 23/08/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>From: Graham <graham.todd@ntlworld.com>
>
>To take a real live case, party A has taken party B to court to decide
>the ownership of a disputed piece of land. On that land is a high
>hedge. Hearing that party B intended to cut down the hedge, party A
>went to court to get an injunction against cutting down the hedge and
>it was granted. The court effectively gave instructions for neither
>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
>injunction was served. They had defied the court. How are they to be
>brought to task then if not for contempt of court, for DELIBERATELY
>defying the court.
>
>Neither party was "guilty" or "innocent" over the original problem (the
>faults probably lie on both sides) but when the court issued that
>injunction in order take time to sort it out, the court had the
>expectation that it would be adhered to. By defying the injunction,
>Party B placed themselves in a position in which they were definitely
>the guilty party, a position which resulted in their imprisonment.
>
>And quite right too.
>- --
>
>Graham
I would agree with you given -this- example, Graham.
BUT:
there is a clear difference between being ordered -NOT- to do something then choosing to do it
and
being ordered -TO- do something that may well be impossible (forgotten keys)
Now, where did I put that t'pence h'penny...?
M.
--=====================_53239384==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
At 07:47 23/08/2002 +0100, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>From: Graham
<graham.todd@ntlworld.com><br><br>
To take a real live case, party A has taken party B to court to decide
<br>
the ownership of a disputed piece of land. On that land is a high
<br>
hedge. Hearing that party B intended to cut down the hedge, party A
<br>
went to court to get an injunction against cutting down the hedge and
<br>
it was granted. The court effectively gave instructions for neither
<br>
party to do anything while the matter was being decided.<br><br>
Party B took heavy equipment on the land to cut down the hedge after the
<br>
injunction was served. They had defied the court. How are
they to be <br>
brought to task then if not for contempt of court, for DELIBERATELY
<br>
defying the court.<br><br>
Neither party was "guilty" or "innocent" over the
original problem (the <br>
faults probably lie on both sides) but when the court issued that <br>
injunction in order take time to sort it out, the court had the <br>
expectation that it would be adhered to. By defying the injunction,
<br>
Party B placed themselves in a position in which they were definitely
<br>
the guilty party, a position which resulted in their
imprisonment.<br><br>
And quite right too.<br>
- -- <br><br>
Graham<br>
</blockquote><br><br>
I would agree with you given -this- example, Graham.<br><br>
BUT:
<dl>
<dd>there is a clear difference between being ordered -NOT- to do
something then choosing to do it
<dd>and
<dd>being ordered -TO- do something that may well be impossible
(forgotten keys)<br><br>
</dl>Now, where did I put that t'pence h'penny...?<br><br>
M.</html>
--=====================_53239384==_.ALT--