contempt of court
David Swarbrick
david at swarb.freeuk.com
Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:53:46 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C24AE7.2D14E4C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Quite right. It is desperately sad that people in their seventies should
descend to this, but having heard him on the radio, I have no doubt that he
got what was coming to him. I do not know just how involved she was. No
doubt she wnet in to court and felt free to thumb her nose at the judge and
the law.
David Swarbrick, www.lawindexpro.co.uk
david.swarbrick@lawindexpro.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1484 384767
lawindexpro - where case law finds a home
-----Original Message-----
From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
[mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of MS
Sent: 23 August 2002 16:58
To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: contempt of court
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.
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C24AE7.2D14E4C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D824504919-23082002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Quite=20
right. It is desperately sad that people in their seventies should =
descend to=20
this, but having heard him on the radio, I have no doubt that he got =
what was=20
coming to him. I do not know just how involved she was. No doubt she =
wnet in to=20
court and felt free to thumb her nose at the judge and the=20
law.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D2>David Swarbrick,=20
www.lawindexpro.co.uk<BR>david.swarbrick@lawindexpro.co.uk Tel: =
+44(0)1484=20
384767<BR>lawindexpro - where case law finds a home</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk=20
[mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]<B>On Behalf Of=20
</B>MS<BR><B>Sent:</B> 23 August 2002 16:58<BR><B>To:</B>=20
ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: contempt of =
court=20
<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>At 07:47 23/08/2002 +0100, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">From: Graham=20
<graham.todd@ntlworld.com><BR><BR>To take a real live case, =
party A=20
has taken party B to court to decide <BR>the ownership of a disputed =
piece=20
of land. On that land is a high <BR>hedge. Hearing that =
party B=20
intended to cut down the hedge, party A <BR>went to court to get an=20
injunction against cutting down the hedge and <BR>it was =
granted. The=20
court effectively gave instructions for neither <BR>party to do =
anything=20
while the matter was being decided.<BR><BR>Party B took heavy =
equipment on=20
the land to cut down the hedge after the <BR>injunction was =
served. =20
They had defied the court. How are they to be <BR>brought to =
task then=20
if not for contempt of court, for DELIBERATELY <BR>defying the=20
court.<BR><BR>Neither party was "guilty" or "innocent" over the =
original=20
problem (the <BR>faults probably lie on both sides) but when the =
court=20
issued that <BR>injunction in order take time to sort it out, the =
court had=20
the <BR>expectation that it would be adhered to. By defying =
the=20
injunction, <BR>Party B placed themselves in a position in which =
they were=20
definitely <BR>the guilty party, a position which resulted in their=20
imprisonment.<BR><BR>And quite right too.<BR>- --=20
<BR><BR>Graham<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I would agree with you given =
-this-=20
example, Graham.<BR><BR>BUT:=20
<DL>
<DD>there is a clear difference between being ordered -NOT- to do =
something=20
then choosing to do it=20
<DD>and=20
<DD>being ordered -TO- do something that may well be impossible =
(forgotten=20
keys)<BR><BR></DD></DL>Now, where did I put that t'pence =
h'penny...?<BR><BR>M.=20
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C24AE7.2D14E4C0--