Misbehaviour in the Magistrates' Court

I remember being petrified the first time I ever attended the Magistrates' Court.

The fear of the unknown, coupled with the solemn surroundings of the courtroom, made me very apprehensive, even though I was only attending as an observing member of the public.

Attending any court of law should be a dignified experience. Important decisions are made there. Decisions that can have a significant impact on the liberty, livelihood, family and friends of those involved in proceedings.

Unfortunately there are rare occasions where the solemnity and authority of the court are disrespected by those in attendance.

Today, at the request of a reader, I provide a brief summary of the options available for tackling any sort of misbehaviour in the courtroom or court precincts.

It should be said that the bench will usually take a pragmatic approach to dealing with misbehaviour, allowing some instances to go unchallenged depending on the circumstances.

Minor Transgressions

The District Judge or Presiding Justice should challenge any minor transgression they notice or is brought to their attention. Examples might include a person:

• Wearing inappropriate clothing;
• Chewing gum or eating in the courtroom;
• Talking too loudly or otherwise causing a distraction from the public gallery;
• Addressing the bench or officer of the court in a disrespectful manner.

Normally the District Judge or Presiding Justice will raise the matter by addressing the transgressor directly. They will give some words of advice or, if appropriate, a warning of further consequences if the matter isn't remedied. In the overwhelming majority of cases that brings about an instant moderation of the transgressor's behaviour. Suppose the transgressor persisted, they could be asked to leave the courtroom or court building. If asking didn't work then they could be compelled to do so.

Legislation (section 53 of the Courts Act 2003) permits a court security officer to use reasonable force, if necessary, to remove any person from the courtroom or the court building if they are causing interference or delay to the proceedings of the court, causing any sort of disorder or to secure the safety of any person in the court building. The same legislation permits a court security officer to use reasonable force, if necessary, to remove any person from the courtroom at the direction of a Judge or Justice of the Peace. 

If the transgressor persisted in disrupting the proceedings of the court, then the bench may well decide to escalate matters.

Contempt of Court

The nuclear option, generally reserved for the most serious or persistent instances of misbehaviour, is for the court to order that the person be taken into custody in accordance with section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The procedure to be followed in contempt cases is outlined in Part 48 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, which are available online.

Unless it is impracticable to do so, the rules dictate that a person should be warned about the powers available to the court if they persist in their misbehaviour. They should be given the opportunity to account for their misbehaviour, apologise to the court, and informed of their right to take legal advice.

If that warning goes unheeded the court can order that the person (hereafter referred to as the alleged contemptor) be detained. They would be handcuffed and taken to the cells, where they spend a few hours quietly reflecting on their misbehaviour. They are entitled to legal advice, invariably from the duty solicitor, in those circumstances.

Before the court rises the alleged contemptor is brought back to the dock and given the opportunity to apologise for their earlier misbehaviour.

If they admit the offence and appear suitably contrite the court will often, although not always, release them from custody at that point. If, however, their conduct has been particularly poor, or they refuse to apologise, or they continue to misbehave, they will face a further penalty for the offence.

Suppose the alleged contemptor denied their behaviour amounted to contempt, then a hearing would be required to determine the matter. The rules allow that hearing to be conducted by the same bench.

Contempt proceedings in the Magistrates' Court are exceptionally rare, but the option is always available in cases where any person:

• "wilfully insults the justice or justices, any witness before or officer of the court or any solicitor or counsel having business in the court, during his or their sitting or attendance in court or in going to or returning from the court; or
• "wilfully interrupts the proceedings of the court or otherwise misbehaves in court."

In the Magistrates' Court, the maximum penalty for this offence is one months' custody and/or £2,500 fine. In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty for this offence is two years' custody or an unlimited fine. 

The court does not have the power to order a person found in contempt to pay the victim surcharge.

Filming, Recording or Photography

Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 specifies that it is contempt of court "to use in court, or bring into court for use, any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound, except with the leave of the court" or to publish any such recording. In the twenty-first century, this also encompasses any instrument that records images in addition to sounds - e.g. mobile phones or cameras being used to take videos - although this section would not include an instrument that recorded images only.

Anyone found in contravention of that section could be dealt with under section 12 as previously described. The court also has the power to order the forfeiture, destruction or disposal of any such recording instrument the person has in their possession.

Case law (R v D [2004] EWCA Crim 1271) has established that taking photographs within the courtroom or court building can also amount to contempt. You can read a summary of the case here.

In this case a man took a photograph of the defendant, who happened to be his brother, stood in the dock alongside a prison officer; he took a second photograph of a witness in the box, although the quality was too poor to recognise the witness; he took a third photograph in the canteen area of the court building.

The trial Judge took a dim view of the man's actions and he was sentenced to 12 months' custody for contempt. He appealed the sentence but the High Court upheld the decision of the trial Judge, noting that he was well within his rights to impose the sentence he did.

Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 makes it a specific offence to take any image (be that a photograph, video, portrait or sketch) or attempt to take any such image in court "of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal."

The section goes on to define "court" quite broadly, as encompassing any courtroom, court building or court precincts. It also states that the image will be considered as being made in court if it is made of any person entering or leaving any courtroom, court building or court precincts.

The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000 maximum).

What this means, in the simplest terms, is that it is a specific offence for anyone standing on court grounds - be that inside the building, the front step, car park, garden or whatever - to take photographs or videos.

Most people don't realise that court sketches they see in the media are actually drawn from memory later on - this legislation doesn't allow the artist to draw when they are inside court. Similarly any photographs you see in the media are always taken from the public pavement, never from the court precincts.