Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Publicación cientíca en formato digital
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185
Depósito legal pp 197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.40 N° 74
2022
Recibido el 29/06/2022 Aceptado el 28/08/2022
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 40, Nº 74 (2022), 393-409
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Specic features of the legal regulation
of prosecution for contempt of court:
judicial rules established in dierent
countries
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4074.21
Larysa Nalyvaiko *
Vasyl Ilkov **
Iryna Verba ***
Olha Kulinich ****
Oleksandr Korovaiko *****
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to reveal the specic features
of prosecution for contempt of court in dierent countries. The
methodological basis of this research is a set of general scientic
methods (dialectics, abstraction, generalization, analysis,
modelling) and special methods of scientic cognition (comparative and
legal method, etc.). The existing types of responsibility and penalties for
committing contempt of court in dierent countries of the world have been
characterized. The authors have carried out the analysis of the experience
of legal liability for manifestation of contempt of court rules established
in the United States, Canada, France, Australia, Belgium, Poland, Great
Britain, New Zealand, Ireland and India, which allowed to highlight the
positive provisions for improvement of legislation in this area. It has
been concluded that the purpose of establishing the aforementioned
responsibility is to guarantee the administration of justice and the rule
of law, maintain and strengthen public condence in the judicial system,
* Doctor in Law, professor, Vice-Rector of Dnipropetrovsk state university of international aairs,
professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational and Scientic of Law and
Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Aairs, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7696-4223
** Doctor in Law, Professor, professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational
and Scientic of Law and Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Aairs.
ORCID ID: https//orcid.org/0000-0002-1419-0605
*** Ph.D. in Law, associate professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational
and Scientic of Law and Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Aairs,
Judge, Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
3877-6192
**** Ph.D. in Law, associate Professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational
and Scientic of Law and Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Aairs.
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0603-0513
***** Doctor in Law, president judge of Kherson Court of Appeals. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-
0003-0347-0887
394
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
safeguarding the continuity of the judicial process. Based on the analysis
of regulatory legal acts and the jurisprudence of several countries in the
world, the authors have made the classication by categories of actions that
qualify as contempt.
Keywords: legal liability; contempt of court; administrative violation;
court hearing; case review.
Características especícas de la regulación legal del
enjuiciamiento por manifestación de desacato a los
tribunales: normas judiciales establecidas en diferentes
países
Resumen
El propósito del artículo es revelar las características especícas del
enjuiciamiento por desacato al tribunal en diferentes países. La base
metodológica de esta investigación es un conjunto de métodos cientícos
generales (dialéctica, abstracción, generalización, análisis, modelado) y
métodos especiales de cognición cientíca (método comparativo y legal,
etc.). Se han caracterizado los tipos de responsabilidad y penas existentes
por cometer desacato al tribunal en diferentes países del mundo. Los
autores han realizado el análisis de la experiencia de responsabilidad legal
por manifestación de desacato o reglas judiciales establecidas en los Estados
Unidos, Canadá, Francia, Australia, Bélgica, Polonia, Gran Bretaña, Nueva
Zelanda, Irlanda e India, lo que permitió destacar las disposiciones positivas
para mejorar la legislación en este ámbito. Se ha concluido que la nalidad
de establecer la responsabilidad señalada es garantizar la administración
de justicia y el estado de derecho, mantener y fortalecer la conanza
ciudadana en el sistema judicial, resguardando la continuidad del proceso
judicial. Con base en el análisis de los actos jurídicos reglamentarios y la
jurisprudencia de varios países del mundo, los autores han realizado la
clasicación por categorías de las acciones que se calican como desacato.
Palabras clave: responsabilidad legal; desacato al tribunal; infracción
administrativa; audiencia del tribunal; revisión del
caso.
395
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
Introduction
Judges in every national legal system have the right to authorize
contempt of court in order to ensure the administration of justice and the
rule of law, to maintain and strengthen public condence in the judicial
system. Therefore, prosecuting a person for contempt of court is an
important element in maintaining the rule of law in a democratic country
(Teremetskyi et al., 2021b).
Unfortunately, threats and insults against judges, forward behaviour of
participants in the proceedings or those present during court hearings are
common phenomena in many countries. It is primarily due to the low legal
culture of the citizens of such countries, as well as the lack of understanding
of court signicance and its importance in ensuring the rule of law. The
problem of interfering in the normal functioning of the judicial system,
which is often manifested in contempt of court is relevant under such
conditions (Starovoitova, 2021).
Prosecuting a person for contempt of court is currently used in the world
as the way where the justice system protects the smooth running of the
legal trial and the administration of justice (Teremetskyi et al., 2021a).
Prosecution for contempt of court is used to protect the court’s activities and
to prevent interference into the legal trial by the way of illegal dissemination
of information about the progress of its implementation or disrupting the
work of the court during hearings. It should be noted that in resolving the
issue of prosecution for contempt of court, the court does not protect its
own dignity from insult or harm, but protects and upholds the rights of
litigants so that the administration of justice is not distorted or biased.
1. Methodology
The scientic and theoretical basis of this research was the works of
experts in the eld of administrative law, administrative proceedings,
theory of state and law, criminal proceedings, civil proceedings and other
disciplines. The normative basis of the research is the current international
legal acts, as well as regulatory legal acts of certain countries that regulate
legal relations in the eld of justice. The informational and empirical basis
of the article is a generalization of the practice of judges as subjects that
impose administrative liability for contempt of court, reference books,
statistics, political and legal journalism.
The methodological basis of this research is a set of general and special
scientic methods of scientic cognition, the use of which allowed us to
obtain scientically sound conclusions and recommendations. Thus,
the dialectical method has been used for the general characteristic of
396
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
administrative liability for contempt of court. Methods of abstraction and
generalization have been used to clarify specic features of legal corpus
delicti of an administrative oense under the Art. 185-3 of the Code of
Ukraine on Administrative Oenses.
The method of documentary analysis has been used to characterize
the legal principles of administrative liability for contempt of court.
Modelling and forecasting methods are aimed at nding out the ways to
improve administrative liability for contempt of court. The comparative
and legal method has been used to generalize international experience of
administrative liability for manifesting contempt of court or established
court rules.
2. Results and Discussion
Bringing a person to liability for contempt of court stems from the
law and practice of Great Britain, where disobedience to court orders was
regarded as the contempt to the king himself (Goldfarb, 1961). There is no
legal denition of “contempt of court” in many countries. It is due to the fact
that legal relations are constantly changing, and therefore it is impossible
to predict all the actions that can be qualied as a manifestation of such
disrespect.
Contempt of court is generally understood as any behaviour that
interferes with the administration of justice. Contempt of court covers a
variety of behaviors, which can be divided into the following categories:
1. disrespect for a judge in a courtroom or court premises (misconduct
in court, interruption of a judge, commenting on a trial, taking photos
in a courtroom, insulting a judge), court scandals (behavior leading
to disrespect of judges or court, undermines public condence to
the administration of justice);
2. contempt of court, which is expressed in the violation of court orders
(refusal to comply with court orders or obligations to the court);
3. contempt of court associated to the breach of ocial duties by a
person related to court proceedings (lawyers, witnesses, jurors).
Such disrespect occurs when persons having special responsibilities
before the court or play a special role in the trial, fail to perform
their duties before the court;
4. contempt of court related to abuse of the process (preparation
and submission of court documents for misleading, dishonest or
otherwise inappropriate purposes) (Teremetskyi et al., 2021b).
397
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
Refusal to appear on a summons, to testify, to comply with a juror’s
obligation, or to provide certain information may in some countries
(particularly Australia, Canada) also be contempt of court and may result
in liability.
Publications and public speeches have been recently included to the acts
of contempt of court. The growing use of the Internet and social networks
has led to new challenges for the justice system. The media is currently
a part of everyday life, and the coverage of information about events in
society has increased due to the availability of such information. Therefore,
the publication, statement or interview about a case during a trial is not
allowed in many countries.
The balance between the protection of the administration of justice and
the right to freedom of expression is important when covering information.
In this regard, the Art. 40.6.i of the Constitution of Ireland states that:
The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject
to public order and morality. However, ...the State seeks to ensure that… radio,
press, and cinema, while preserving their legitimate freedom of expression... are
not used to undermine public order, morals or the authority of state power. The
publication or utterance of the seditious or indecent matter is an oence which
shall be punishable in accordance with law (Constitution of Ireland, 1937).
There is a discretionary ban in Canada on the publication of any
information that may identify a victim or a witness in all criminal
investigations at the request of state authorities, a victim or a witness.
Besides, prohibitions on publications include the publication of evidence
or other information obtained as a result of a bail hearing (Article 517 of
the Canadian Criminal Code), a preliminary investigation (Article 539 of
the Canadian Criminal Code) or a jury trial (Article 648 of the Canadian
Criminal Code) (Government Of Canada, 1985). All juvenile courts in
Canada also have a mandatory ban on publishing information about a
juvenile (name or any other identiable information) (S.C., 2002).
Contempt of court in Poland is also the ling of a statement or other
document in writing that violates respect, peace or order of court actions
(Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca, 2001).
Thus, contempt of court in many countries (USA, New Zealand,
Australia, India, Ireland) can be considered as a publication that contains
truthful information about the case or trial, but published before the court
decision; as publication of biased materials in a case pending in court; a
publication containing unfounded allegations against the judicial power; a
publication containing information about the accused that may aect the
jurors. However, fair criticism of a court decision after its pronouncement,
as well as contemptuous comments about a judge as an individual and
398
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
not as an ocial, is not considered contempt of court (Teremetskyi et al.,
2021b).
Legal regulation of contempt of court varies in dierent states: contempt
of court in some countries is referred to in the Constitution (India), in other
cases is regulated by caselaw (Canada, Australia, Ireland, Great Britain),
special laws on contempt of court (UK, New Zealand, India) or other laws,
which are partly state about contempt of court (USA, Canada, Australia,
Poland, France).
The Article 129 of the Constitution of India states that the Supreme Court
is the highest court within the judicial system and has all the powers of such
a court, including the right to punish for contempt of court (Constitution
of India, 1950). Law norms related to contempt of court in Ireland are set
out in caselaw to ensure the eective functioning of the judicial system. At
the same time, the Law on Final Jurisdiction (1871) enshrines contempt
of court. However, the provisions of this law are applied only in Dublin
(Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1871).
Contempt of court is partly regulated in the United Kingdom by caselaw
and partly by the Contempt of Court Act of 1981. The main purpose of this
law is to protect the integrity of court proceedings, so that any conduct that
interferes with the administration of justice can be considered as contempt
of court, even if there is no intention to interfere with the court activities, for
example, publication as a form of communication addressed to the public
(Contempt of Court Act, 1981).
Actions recognized as contempt of court have been established, and
procedures for bringing perpetrators to justice have been regulated in
India at the legislative level (The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971). Similar
provisions are enshrined in the Contempt of Court Act 2019 in New Zeland
(Contempt of Court Act, 2019).
There are also countries where there is no special law counteracting
contempt of court. However, some provisions on contempt of court are
contained in various laws.
The rst US federal law concerning to disrespect the judicial power was
the Judiciary Act (1789). The Article 17 of this law gave the federal courts “the
power to ne or imprison at the discretion of those courts all manifestations
of contempt of power in any case or during the proceedings” (Judiciary
Act, 1789). Pennsylvania was the rst U.S. state to pass a law dening
contempt of court, which could be manifested in any misconduct against
court ocials, disobedience during court proceedings and misconduct in
the presence of a court (Goldfarb, 1961).
Manifestation of contempt of court in the United States at the federal
level is currently determined by the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
399
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
Code (U.S. Code: Title 18, 1948) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1938). At the same time, dierent states
have their own laws that determine what actions are contempt of court and
the procedure for bringing a person to justice. For example, the Section
18.2 of the Code of Virginia contains the Article providing an exhaustive
list of cases, when judges of Virginia may decide to prosecute a person for
contempt of court as soon as possible (Code of Virginia, 1950).
Courts in New York state have the power to punish promptly any
manifestation of contempt committed in the presence of a court in
exceptional circumstances and under certain conditions (New York Codes,
2011).
The power of judges in Australia to prosecute a person for contempt of
court is provided by the “Supreme Court Act” (Supreme Court Act, 1933),
“District Court Act” (District Court Act, 1973), “Children’s Court Act”
(Children’s Court Act, 1987). Similar powers of the court are provided by
the Polish Law “On the System of General Courts” (Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca,
2001).
Analysis of caselaw and laws of dierent countries on contempt of
court allows us to distinguish two types of liability, when a person may
be prosecuted for committing actions that will indicate the manifested
contempt of court: civil and criminal liability.
The dierence between civil and criminal liability is that the purpose of
civil liability is not to punish a person, but to force him / her to comply with
a court decision. When bringing a person to civil liability, the court seeks
to re-educate the person and force him / her to do what the person did not
want to do, i.e. it is to force the execution of a previously violated mandatory
court order in the future. Civil liability for contempt of court most often
arises for non-compliance with a court order and is used to coerce a party to
take action. For example, a party who fails to comply with a court decision
may be charged with contempt of court under Rule 70 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1938).
The purpose of criminal liability is to punish a person and uphold the
authority of the courts, i.e., punishment for violating a court order, which
prohibited the commission of certain actions or to refraine from committing
them (Teremetskyi et al., 2021b).
A person who has committed actions that indicate a conscious desire to
disrupt a trial, to create a scandal in court, to spread false statements about
a court or a judge, to publish biased materials about a court case is brought
to criminal liability for contempt of court. For example, in Robertson and
Gough case (Scotland), the court ruled that contempt of court is behavior
that “means intentional disobedience or contempt of court, or deliberate
challenge or opposition to the authority of the court or the rule of law. It is
400
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
this behavior that threatens the administration of justice, which requires
punishment from a public point of view” (Robertson and Gough V. Her
Majesty’s Advocate, 2007).
Contempt of court dened as a crime is the only criminal oense in
Canada that is an exception to the general principle that all criminal oenses
are set out in the Criminal Code (Government Of Canada, 1985).
There is direct and indirect contempt of court. For example, if an action
in the form of contempt occurs in the presence of a court, it is a direct one,
if an action of contempt occurs outside the court, then it is an indirect one
(Criminal Resource Manual, 2020).
In general, the countries, where contempt of court is regulated at the
legislative level, have a clear denition what actions are contempt of court,
which oenses committed by a person are prosecuted by civil or criminal
norms, as well as there is a clear denition of the range of persons who
may be subject to contempt of court, the procedure for hearing the case and
bringing to liability. Let’s consider this in details.
The United States Court has the right to punish individuals for contempt
of court in the form of nes or imprisonment, or to apply both punishments
at its discretion only if there are three reasons:
1) the misconduct was committed in the presence of a judge or certain
actions were committed in order to obstruct the administration of justice;
2) the misconduct was committed by any ocial of the court while
exercising their powers; 3) there was disobedience or resistance to a lawful
order during the process or in execution of a decision or ruling (Crimes and
Criminal Procedure: Title 18, 1948).
Courts at all levels in Canada have the power to prosecute individuals
for contempt of court occurred in the court, but only higher courts have the
right to prosecute individuals for contempt of court committed elsewhere
(The Canadian Justice System and the Media, 2007).
The Supreme Court in Australia can prosecute for contempt of court,
which is disrespect to court either during a hearing, disobedience to a judge’s
decision or order or breach of court obligations. In addition, the Supreme
Court has the power to consider both disrespect for itself and disrespect for
any lower court (Supreme Court Act, 1970). At the same time, lower courts
also have the right to prosecute for contempt (District Court Act, 1973).
Higher courts in India according to the Art. 10 of the Law “On contempt of
court” (1971) are empowered to prosecute subordinate courts for contempt
of court. The Article 15 of this Law states that even in case of contempt
of court, which imposes criminal liability, contempt proceedings must be
initiated by a higher court at the request of a subordinate court or at the
request of the Advocate General (Legal Adviser to the State Government)
(The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971).
401
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
Judges in the United Kingdom have broad powers to hear cases against
those who have shown contempt of court. There are minimum requirements
to ensure a fair trial: the court provides information about the action of
contempt of court and explains what has been done wrong by a person
against whom the decision of contempt of court will be made; the court
provides an opportunity to get acquainted with the available protections;
the court gives a person the opportunity to apologize for own actions. The
case is heard on the day of contempt of court or the next day (Contempt of
Court Act, 1981).
Bringing a person to liability for contempt of court in Australia stipulates
that judges comply with a certain procedure consisting of four rules: 1)
identifying a person whose case is heard; 2) bringing a person to a court;
3) informing the parties in the case; 4) granting permission to the court to
make a decision on taking a person into custody or his / her release pending
the indictment for contempt of court, which may include bail.
A judge who believes that a person is guilty of contempt of court may
verbally punish the oender or issue an arrest and detention warrant until
the person is brought to court to answer the charges. A judge presiding over
the relevant proceedings may not be obliged to testify in the proceedings
for contempt of court. However, an ocial transcript or ocial audio or
video recording of the proceedings in the court may be admissible evidence
(Supreme Court Act, 1970).
The court in Canada cannot prosecute a person until it is established that
his or her behavior has seriously impeded or obstructed the administration
of justice or posed a serious risk of interference or obstruction of the
administration of justice (R. v. Glasner, 1994 CanLII 3444 (ON CA).
Besides, the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec (Canada) states that courts
may impose a penalty on any person found guilty of contempt of court,
which took place inside or outside the court. However, if contempt of court
is committed against the Court of Appeal, but out of the premises, the case
is referred to the High Court (Code de Procédure Civile, 2014).
Prosecution of a person for contempt of court in Ireland is subject to the
following conditions:
1. a case on the commission of any action that indicates on contempt
of court during the trial shall be considered by a judge as soon as
possible;
2. a case of contempt in regard to a judge’s personality (statements
against a judge) is considered by another judge;
3. a judge has the right to detain a person and detain him / her for no
more than 24 hours;
402
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
4. a person must be informed of the time and date of the hearing about
the case of contempt of court, which is conducted as soon as possible
from the moment of the oense;
5. a person who has committed contempt of court is given the
opportunity to defend oneself or get legal representation, including
legal assistance;
6. if contempt of court was expressed in statements against a judge,
the judge shall not be summoned as a witness, and a copy of the
digital audio recording of the trial where the oense occurred shall
be attached to the case le (Donal O’Donnell, 2002).
If a judge or another court employee in New Zealand considers that any
person intentionally violates the behavior in the courtroom or intentionally
and without legal grounds disobeys any order of a judge or another court
employee during the hearing, then the judge or another court employee
may take one or more of the following actions: remove the person from
the courtroom and order that the person be taken into custody. During
the detention, a person accused of violating public order will be given
the opportunity to get legal representation, as well as the opportunity to
apologize to the court.
The judge or another court employee must consider detention issue
before the announcement of the time and place of the hearing, and, if an
additional sentence is to be imposed, the judge or another court employee
must provide a person with a written statement describing the action,
which is the basis for bringing a person to liability for contempt of court.
If contempt of court has been recorded by a judge, then the judge must
consider the circumstances of transferring the case to another judge.
Consideration of the case from the moment of the action’s commission,
which indicates on contempt of court, begins within 7 days (Contempt of
Court Act, 2019).
The presiding judge in Poland may remove a person from the courtroom
who commits certain actions indicating on contempt of court (violates
respect for the court, peace or order of court actions) only after repeated
remarks about misconduct and in the absence of response to those remarks,
as well as after prior notice of the legal consequences of such conduct in the
courtroom (Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca, 2001).
The court’s authorities in Canada to consider contempt of court as a
criminal oense does not follow from the Canadian Criminal Code. However,
judges generally use common criminal law practices and procedures to
sentence on contempt of court. Such a sentence on contempt of court will
be aimed at deterring others from committing such actions that undermine
the rule of law (Ziegel, 1960).
403
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
It should be noted that some world countries may prosecute both
individuals and legal entities for contempt of court (New Zealand, India).
For example, if a person in India found guilty of contempt of court in respect
of any obligations given to the court is a legal entity, then any person of
that legal entity who was liable for the legal entity or for certain actions on
behalf of such legal entity at the time of committing contempt of court, is
guilty of contempt and the measure of responsibility may be imposed by the
court on each person (The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971).
There are various types of penalties for contempt of court in dierent
countries. The most severe punishment is imposed in Great Britain and
Scotland. Thus, a person can be sentenced to up of two years in prison or
a ne of £ 2,500 under the Contempt of Court Act. (Contempt of Court
Act, 1981). The type of punishment for contempt of court is imposed in
accordance with the general principles of sentencing, taking into account
the nature of the committed oense, as well as the oender’s personality.
The UK courts focus on the fact that a ne is an alternative to imprisonment,
and a ne may be the appropriate punishment for those who committed
contempt of court for the rst time.
An individual in New Zealand is punished with imprisonment for up
to six months with a ne of up to 25,000 dollars for committing such
actions as the intentional publication of any information about criminal
proceedings, information relevant to any trial of a person, information, if
there is a real threat that it may prejudice the rights of the individual to a
fair trial. A legal entity is punished with a ne of not more than 100,000
dollars. A judge prosecutes a person in the form of a ne of not more than
10,000 dollars or community services not exceeding 200 hours, and may
issue a warrant for imprisonment for the term not more than 3 months for
intentional refractoriness to a judge’s order during the hearing, which had
no legal grounds. For disclosing jury discussions an individual is subject
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a ne of not more
than $ 10,000, a legal entity – for a ne of not more than $ 40,000. An
individual is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or
a ne of up to $ 25,000, a legal entity – to a ne not exceeding $ 100,000
for the publication that contains false information about a court or a judge
(Contempt of Court Act, 2019).
District courts in Australia can impose a ne of up to 20 penalty units
or up to 28 days in prison for contempt of court (District Court Act, 1973).
A person in India can be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months,
or receive a ne of up to two thousand rupees, or even imprisonment and
a ne.
In Canada, a person who fails to appear in court as a witness and, if
there are no valid reasons for not appearing, is found to have committed
contempt of court and may be prosecuted for a ne not exceeding 100
404
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 90 days or these two
penalties together, and may be obliged to pay the costs associated with
the maintenance of this process or costs for the detention, if applicable
(Government of Canada, 1985).
A ne of up to $ 10,000 may be imposed on an individual for contempt
of court within civil proceedings in Quebec (Canada), and a legal entity
may be ned $ 100,000. If a person refuses to comply with an order or
prohibition, the court, in this case, may impose a penalty of imprisonment
for a certain period in addition to the imposed penalty until the person
obeys. Besides, this person will be periodically summoned to explain own
behavior. However, such imprisonment may not exceed one year period
(Code de Procédure Civil).
Belgium does not provide any specic sanctions for “contempt of
court”. However, in certain cases, if a person during a court hearing
behaves particularly aggressively and abusively, clings to a judge or other
participants in the hearing, interrupts or performs other actions that
impede the process, the judge classifying these actions as contempt of
court has the right to complete a report, to hear the accused and witnesses
and immediately impose a penalty in the form of a ne provided by law
(Strafprozessgesetzbuch, 1808).
Contempt of court in France results in a double penalty: imprisonment
combined with a ne provided by the Criminal Code. In particular, insults
with words, gestures or threats, letters or images of any nature that have
not been made public, or sending any subject to a judge, juror or any person
from a judicial agency exercising his or her powers or in regard to this
activity, which may lead to humiliation or disrespect for the position, is
punishable by one year of imprisonment and a ne of € 15,000. If contempt
of court occurs during a court hearing or in a judicial panel, the penalty is
increased to two years of imprisonment and a ne of € 30,000 (Article 434-
24). For attempting to discredit a court decision under conditions that may
undermine the authority or independence of government, a person is liable
to imprisonment for 6 months and a ne of 7,500 euros (Article 434-25)
(Code pénal, 2002).
In case of contempt of court in Poland, the court may impose a ne of
up to 3,000 PLN or imprisonment for up to 14 days. If the ne is not paid,
this type of penalty is replaced by imprisonment for up to 7 days taking into
account the type of oense, the personal characteristics of the convict, the
degree of the guilt (Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca, 2001).
The peculiarity of bringing to civil liability for contempt of court in
India is the fact that if the court considers that the imposition of a ne as
a measure of civil liability does not achieve the goal of justice and that it is
necessary to apply an imprisonment, such imprisonment may be applied
for a period not exceeding six months.
405
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
The peculiarity of prosecuting for contempt of court in some world
countries is that a person can apologize for the oense in court, which can
be considered as a ground for releasing from liability. For example, a person
in India, who has committed contempt of court and has already been the
subject of a criminal decision, may be released from punishment because of
an apology to a court, which should be accepted by a court.
One of the relevant issues in many countries around the world (Ireland,
Australia) is the review of caselaw in regard to contempt of court and
amendments to the legislation by resolving contempt of court at the
legislative level. For example, the Irish Legislative Reform Commission,
whose duties are to review laws by conducting expert examinations and
research to reform Irish legislation (Law Reform Commission Act, 1975),
studied the issue of contempt of court in the country in 1994.
The Commission in its report on contempt of court noted that criminal
and civil contempt of court are dicult to distinguish, since there is a
blurred line and a lack of legal norms to address the issue. This leads to
various diculties for a person sentenced to imprisonment for contempt
of court, as well as for judges who apply this punishment, which gives the
latter a large scope of discretion.
Based on the results of the conducted study, the Commission made
recommendations on reforming the legislation in this area, in particular
on the need to consolidate contempt of court at the legislative level instead
of the existing norms of common law. However, those recommendations
have not been implemented for more than 15 years, although the attempts
have been made. All issues related to the need to regulate contempt of court
manifestationsat the legislative level, in particular clarifying the procedure
for bringing a person to justice, as well as penalties for contempt, which can
guarantee fair trial are being currently discussed in Australia (Contempt of
Court: Report, 2020).
Thus, bringing to justice for contempt of court in the world is used as the
way for the justice system to protect the smooth running of the trial and the
administration of justice, non-interference in the trial by illegally disclosing
information about the process.
Conclusion
The authors of the article have studied specic features of the prosecution
for contempt of court or established court rules in the United States, Canada,
France, Australia, Belgium, Poland, Great Britain, New Zealand, Ireland,
India. It has been established that legal regulation of contempt of court
diers between countries: some countries refer contempt of court in the
406
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
Constitution (India), in other countries it is regulated by caselaw (Canada,
Australia, Ireland), by laws on contempt of court (UK, New Zealand, India),
by other laws (USA, Australia, Poland, Belgium, Canada).
At the same time, prosecution for contempt of court in various countries
around the world is used to ensure the administration of justice and the
rule of law, to maintain and strengthen public condence in the judicial
system, to protect the continuity of the legal trial.
The analysis of regulatory legal acts and caselaw of the world countries
made it possible to single out actions that are classied as contempt of court
and to divide them into categories: contempt to a judge, which takes place
in a courtroom or court premises; contempt of court, which is expressed in
violation of court orders; contempt of court, which is expressed in the form
of breaking ocial duties by a person that are related to court proceedings;
contempt of court, which is related to abuse of proceedings; contempt of
court, which consists in publishing materials or covering information about
the legal trial or its participants.
There are two main types of liability for contempt of court in the world:
civil and criminal. The purpose of civil liability is not to punish a person, but
to force him / her to comply with a court decision. The purpose of criminal
liability is to punish a person and to uphold the authority of judges.
The accomplished analysis of international experience in prosecuting
a person for contempt of court or established court rules has assisted to
distinguish the following positive provisions for improving legislation in
this area: the need to legislative consolidation of the procedure for bringing
to administrative liability (New Zealand); to consider publications,
statements and interviews during the legal trial before the nal decision
as contempt of court (USA, New Zealand, Canada); the case of insulting a
judge must be heard by another judge (Ireland); a person has the right to
legal aid, so cases cannot be heard without giving a person the opportunity
to exercise that right (Ireland, New Zealand); the possibility of prosecuting
legal entities for contempt of court (New Zealand, India).
Bibliographic References
AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT. 1933. Supreme Court Act. Available
online. In: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/
sca1933183/. Consultation date: 23/05/2022.
CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL. 2007. The Canadian Justice System
and the Media. Available online. In: https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/
general/news_pub_other_cjsm_en.pdf. Consultation date:
27/05/2022.
407
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. R. V. GLASNER, 1994 CANLII
3444 (ON CA). Available online. In: https://www.canlii.org/
en/on/onca/doc/1994/1994canlii3444/1994canlii3444.html.
Consultation date: 27/05/2022.
DONAL O’DONNELL. 2002. “Some Reections on the Law of Contempt”
In: Studies Institute Journal. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 87-128.
FRENCH PARLIAMENT. 2002. Code pénal. Available online. In: https://
www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/
LEGISCTA000006181767/#LEGISCTA000006181767. Consultation
date: 24/05/2022.
GOLDFARB, Ronald. 1961. “The History of the Contempt Power” In: WASH.
U. L. Q. No. 1. Available online. In: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/
law_lawreview/vol1961/iss1/6/. Consultation date: 23/05/2022.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. 1985. Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c.
C-46). Available online. In: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/
acts/c-46/. Consultation date: 27/05/2022.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. 2002. Youth Criminal Justice Act (S.C.
2002, p. 1). Available online. In: https://www.laws-lois.justice.
gc.ca/eng/acts/y-1.5/page-20.html#h-471612. Consultation date:
27/05/2022.
NEW YORK CODES. 2011. Rules and Regulations. Title 22 – Judiciary (Sec.
1.0 to Undesignated UCS-124). Available online. In: https://www.
law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/NYCRR-Tit-22-Sec-701-2.
Consultation date: 21/05/2022.
NEW ZELAND PARLIAMENT. 2019. Contempt of Court Act. Available online.
In: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0044/latest/
LMS24753.html. Consultation date: 22/05/2022.
SEJM RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ. 2001. Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca.
Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych. Available online. In: https://
sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/prawo-o-ustroju-sadow-
powszechnych-16909701. Consultation date: 22/05/2022.
STAROVOITOVA, Svitlana. 2021. “Administrative Liability for Direct Contempt
in Ukraine” In: Synopsis of the thesis for candidate’s degree in law. Sumy,
Sumy State University, 21 p.
STEWART ROBERTSON AND STEPHEN GOUGH V. HER MAJESTY’S
ADVOCATE. 2007. HCJAC 63. Available online. In: https://www.
scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=a5a886a6-8980-
69d2-b500-0000d74aa7. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.
408
Larysa Nalyvaiko, Vasyl Ilkov, Iryna Verba, Olha Kulinich y Oleksandr Korovaiko
Specic features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules
established in dierent countries
TEREMETSKYI, Vladyslav; KOROVAIKO, Oleksandr; VASYLENKO, Maryna;
ZHURAVEL, Yaroslav; KHOVPUN, Oleksii; KRAVCHENKO, Viktor;
MULIAR, Halyna. 2021a. “The Contempt of Court: Balance Between the
Protection of the Administration of Justice and the Right to Freedom
of Expression” In: Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues. Vol.
25(S2), pp. 1-7.
TEREMETSKYI, Vladyslav; STAROVOITOVA, Svitlana; HUTS, Nataliia.
2021b. “Features of contempt proceedings in selected countries of the
world” In: Our Law. Vol. 1, pp. 145-150.
THE DÁIL. 1871. Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act. Available
online. In: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1871/act/76/enacted/en/
print. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.
THE DÁIL. 1937. Constitution of Ireland. Available online. In: http://www.
irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article40. Consultation date:
24/05/2022.
THE GERMAN BUNDESRAT. 1808. Strafprozessgesetzbuch. Available online.
In: https://www.scta.be/Startseite-Direkt/Strafrecht. Consultation
date: 21/05/2022.
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 1950. Constitution of India. Available online.
In: https://Legislative.Gov.In/Constitution-Of-India. Consultation date:
21/05/2022.
THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION. 1975. Law Reform Commission
Act. Available online. In: https://www.lawreform.ie/_leupload/
RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/EN_ACT_1975_0003.htm.
Consultation date: 23/05/2022.
THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SOLIDARITY.
2014. Code de Procédure Civile. Available online. In: http://legisquebec.
gouv.qc.ca/fr/showdoc/cs/c-25.01. Consultation date: 22/05/2022.
THE NSW GOVERNMENT. 1970. Supreme Court Act. No. 52. Available online.
In: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1970-
052. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.
THE NSW GOVERNMENT. 1973. District Court Act. No 9. Available online.
In: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1973-
009. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.
THE NSW PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL’S OFFICE. 1987. Children’s Court Act
No.53. Available online. In: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/
inforce/current/act-1987-053#sec.21. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.
409
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 74 (2022): 393-409
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA. 1971. The Contempt
of Courts Act. Available online. In: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/
bitstream/123456789/1514/1/197170.pdf#search=Contempt%20of%20
Courts%20Act,%201971. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.
THE UK PARLIAMENT. 1981. Contempt of Court Act. Available online. In:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49. Consultation date:
23/05/2022.
THE US CONGRESS. 1789. The Judiciary Act. Available online. In: https://
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/judiciary_act.asp. Consultation date:
21/05/2022.
THE US CONGRESS. 1938. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Available
online. In: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-viii-
provisional-and-nal-remedies/rule-70-enforcing-a-judgment-for-a-
specic-act/. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.
THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 2020. Criminal Resource Manual.
Available online. In: HTTPS://WWW.JUSTICE.GOV/ARCHIVES/
JM/CRIMINAL-RESOURCE-MANUAL-759-INDIRECT-VERSUS-
DIRECT-CONTEMPT. CONSULTATION DATE: 21/05/2022.
U.S. STATE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. CODE OF VIRGINIA. AVAILABLE ONLINE.
IN: HTTPS://LAW.LIS.VIRGINIA.GOV/VACODE/18.2-456/.
CONSULTATION DATE: 21/05/2022.
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1948. U.S. CODE TITLE 18 – CRIMES
AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. AVAILABLE ONLINE. IN: HTTPS://
USCODE.HOUSE.GOV/VIEW.XHTML?PATH=/PRELIM@
TITLE18&EDITION=PRELIM. CONSULTATION DATE: 21/05/2022.
VICTORIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION. 2020. CONTEMPT OF COURT:
REPORT. AVAILABLE ONLINE. IN: HTTPS://WWW.LAWREFORM.
VIC.GOV.AU/PUBLICATION/CONTEMPT-REPORT/2-
CONTEMPT-OF-COURT-AND-THE-NEED-FOR-REFORM/.
CONSULTATION DATE: 23/05/2022.
ZIEGEL, JACOB. 1959. “SOME ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT OF
COURT IN CANADA, ENGLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES” IN:
MCGILL LAW JOURNAL. VOL. 6, NO. 4, PP. 229-266.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en octubre de 2022, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.40 Nº 74