Blake v Williams et Al
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Byron, C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1996 |
| Neutral Citation | KN 1996 CA 4 |
| Date | 28 October 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Docket Number | Misc. Suit No. 1 of 1996 |
Court of Appeal
Byron, C.J., (Acting)
Singh, J.A.
Redhead, J.A. (Acting)
Misc. Suit No. 1 of 1996
Mr. Cowelby E.H.R. Blake in person.
Mr. C. Wilkin and Mr. A. Gonsalves for respondents no. 4 and no. 8.
Contempt of court - Applicant invoked the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to commit respondents to prison for criminal contempt of court — The respondents published a letter in the Democrat Newspaper in which a judgment was misrepresented and the applicant was prejudiced pending his appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment — The essential elements of the criminal charge which the applicant purported to prosecute against the respondents included proof that there was a risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded or prejudiced by the statement published in the Democrat newspaper
Practice and procedure - Dismissal of proceedings
Facts: Whether the respondent's submission in limine that the proceedings should be dismissed because they were without jurisdiction, procedurally defective, abusive of the process of the court and entirely without factual merit should be upheld — Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act (Cap. 115) of the Laws of St. Christopher and Nevis (Revised Edition 1962)
Held: The words complained of merely reported the judgments with approbation — The idea that the noble and learned judges in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could be affected by such a publication was ridiculous — There was no merit in the allegation — Motion dismissed.
The special procedures prescribed are more appropriately by the High Court — Procedural defect — The applicant failed to comply with s.4(1) of the Act — Procedural defect must result in striking out of the notice of motion — The proceedings in the Court of Appeal were, to determine substantially the same point raised in the High Court proceedings — Application an abuse of the process of the court.
Byron, C.J. [AG.]
The applicant appeared in person on a motion to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to commit the respondents to prison for criminal contempt of Court. The proceedings were instituted by a Notice of Motion issued by the applicant on 27th September 1996 and supported by an affidavit sworn by him which alleged that the respondents had published a letter in the Democrat newspaper which misrepresented a judgment of the Court of Appeal and prejudged the applicant's pending appeal to the Privy Council against that judgment. Only two of the nine respondents had been served and the matter proceeded against them.
At the commencement of the hearing Counsel for the respondents submitted in limine that the proceedings should be dismissed because they were without jurisdiction, procedurally defective, abusive of the process of the court and entirely without factual merit.
The Notice of Motion states that the Court's jurisdiction is based on Order 52 rule 4 of the Order Book 1995, which apparently is a reference to the 1995 edition of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England and on section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act (Cap 15) of the Laws of St. Christopher and Nevis, (revised edition 1962). Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England deals with the procedure for dealing with Contempt of Court. However, the English Rules of Court are not applicable in St. Christopher and Nevis where the Supreme Court practice is prescribed by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Rules of the Supreme Court 1970. These rules do not include any provision for contempt procedures. In so far as the applicant was relying on the provisions of the English rules of court there is no comparable rule applicable in St. Christopher and Nevis.
During his address the applicant indicated that he thought that the practice and procedure in England should apply if there was no prescribed local procedure. The adoption of the English rules of court would have required some legislative enactment and in some of the neighbouring Caribbean jurisdictions that is exactly what has occurred. For example in Barbados the case of Re The Editor of the Barbados Advocate (1960) 3 W.I.R. 8 refers to section 45 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1956 which repealed the Contempt of Court Act 1891 and prescribed that:
“the Supreme Court shall have the same jurisdiction to deal with cases of contempt as may from time to time be exercised at common law by the High Court of Justice in England, and such jurisdiction shall extend to cases involving subordinate Courts”
and in Trinidad and Tobago the case of Trinidad and Tobago Law Society v Chokolingo and Singh (1972) 21 W.I.R. 514 where Hasanali J. stated that Order 53 rule 2 of the Trinidad and Tobago Rules of the Supreme Court was identical in terms with the English Order 52 rule 2. and that:
“the Jurisdiction of our Courts in contempt proceedings is to be exercised as nearly as possible in accordance with the practice and procedure for the time being in force in the High Court of Justice in England. (See s. 14 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, No.12 of 1962).”
In St. Christopher and Nevis the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (St.Christopher and Nevis) Act does not incorporate the English law and practice relating to contempt of Court into the local law. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in contempt is contained in the Contempt of Court Act (Cap 15) which was enacted in 1898. Civil contempts are dealt with by Section 10 which specifically enacts that the Act shall not be deemed to interfere with or affect the power of the Court to punish disobedience of Court process, orders and directions of the Court and contempts in “the face of the Court” by Section 3 which gives the Court power to punish summarily any person who commits a contempt in the presence or hearing of the court when sitting.
The section dealing with criminal contempt such as alleged in these proceedings is Section 4 which provides:
“(1) All contempts of Court other than those committed in the presence and hearing of the Court when sitting shall be dealt with and determined only by means of a rule of the Court which may be applied for by any person whomsoever calling upon the defendant to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt of Court.”
There are ten subsections which set out in some detail the procedure to be followed.
In the definition section the Court is described as the Supreme Court, which includes both the trial and the appellate divisions. This seems to be in keeping with the inherent power which Superior courts have exercised from the earliest times to coerce those who obstruct the administration of justice. It is obvious that this power is needed by the Court of Appeal in the case of contempts in “the face of the Court” which are regulated by section 3 of the Act. Without going into any detail, I have formed the opinion that in the case of those criminal contempts which are regulated by section 4 of the Act, the special procedures prescribed are more conveniently and appropriately administered by the High Court. I venture the conclusion that these proceedings should not have been instituted in the Court of Appeal.
In section 4(1) of the Act, the term “rule of the court” signifies an order or direction made by a court of justice in an action or proceeding. The particular rule prescribed is a rule to show cause, or a rule nisi. This means that if no sufficient cause is shown, the rule is made absolute: otherwise it is discharged. More importantly it means that the respondents would be summoned to show cause by an order of the Court.
In this case the applicant did not obtain a rule of Court. He served the respondents with Notice of his motion for their committal to prison, and with a subpoena commanding their attendance at Court. The legal result is that the applicant failed to comply with section 4(1) of the Act.
This procedural defect must result in striking out the Notice of Motion. The requirement that an applicant obtains a rule of Court provides a mechanism for judicial supervision over the issue of these grave criminal proceedings which could lead to summary imprisonment. Additionally, the form of these proceedings invites the Court to infringe the respondents' rights against the deprivation of their personal liberty, except by due process of law, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Had the applicant applied to the court for an application to obtain a rule of court, his contention would have been examined to determine whether there was any basis for instituting the proceedings. I propose to go through this process without expressing my adjudication on the other procedural defects identified by counsel for the respondents.
From the earliest legal history the courts have assumed the power to coerce those who obstruct the administration of justice. In more modern times the Phillimore Committee, which reported in 1974 on the law of contempt, expressed the opinion that the Law of contempt is required as a means of maintaining the rights...
To continue reading
Request your trial