CONTEMPT OF COURT— Breach of restraint order — Jurisdiction — Defendant allegedly breaching restraint order prohibiting him dealing with certain property pending his criminal trial — Prosecution applying to the Crown Court for defendant to be committed for contempt of court— Whether Crown Court having jurisdiction to entertain application

R v M; [2008] WLR (D) 297

CA: Toulson LJ, Andrew Smith and Bean JJ: 14 August 2008

Where a defendant in criminal proceedings was said to have breached a restraint order, imposed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by making certain prohibited transactions a judge of the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try an application made by the prosecution for the defendant to be committed for contempt.
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) so held when dismissing the interlocutory appeal of the defendant, M, from a ruling made by a judge sitting in the Crown Court that he had jurisdiction to determine an application made by the prosecution seeking committal of the defendant for contempt of court, founded on an alleged breach of a restraint order imposed pursuant to s 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 prohibiting the defendant from dealing with certain realisable property. The grounds of appeal were that the Crown Court had no jurisdiction to try such an allegation of contempt which was not contempt in the face of the court but was founded on breach of a restraint order, and that the appropriate forum was the Divisional Court.

BEAN J, giving the judgment of the court, said that, having regard, inter alia, to Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] QB 73 (where, unlike the present case, the judge had effectively been prosecutor) and to dicta of Woolf LJ in Director of Public Prosecutions v Channel 4 Television Co [1993] 2 All ER 517, 520E (where there had arguably been an issue as to civil liberties which could not be advanced in the present case), there was no reason why a judge of the Crown Court should not be able to try the instant allegation in a context which was comparable to that of freezing order cases. It would be a matter for the judge when the application was returned to him to consider whether there was sufficient evidence before him to support it.

Appearances: Ivan Krolick (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Lisa Wilding (Crown Prosecution Service, Ludgate Circus) for the Crown

Reported by: Matthew Brotherton, barrister