R v Froomkin

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 26 July 1990
• Date: 26 July 1990
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1989,Criminal Appeal. No. 24 of 1989
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bermuda)

In the Court of Appeal for Bermuda

H.L. da Costa, Acting P.

K.C. Henry J.A.

Huggins, J.A.

Criminal Appeal. No. 24 of 1989

Saul M. Froomkin

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Administration of Justice (Contempt of Court) Act 1979

Contempt of court — Construction

RULING:

There are so many inconsistencies in the various provisions of The Administration of Justice (Contempt of Court) Act 1979 (‘the 1979 Act’) we have found it impossible to decide the matter as one of construction of the mere words used by the Legislature.

Prior to the passing of the 1979 Act there was a right of appeal against both conviction and sentence in the case of summary trial for contempt in face of the court. We are not sufficiently satisfied that there are clear words abrogating that right. Accordingly we hold that there is jurisdiction and we will therefor proceed to hear the appeal.

We are satisfied that the learned judge did purport to convict. He did not say: ‘I am minded or tempted to hold you guilty of contempt’ or words to that effect. He said, ‘I now hold you in contempt of court for your behaviour, conduct and words towards me. …’ We would therefore invite counsel to put before us any matter which would support the conviction.

H.L. da Costa, Acting P.

K.C. Henry, J.A.

Huggins, J.A.

In the Court of Appeal for Bermuda

da Costa, Acting P

Huggins, JA

Henry, JA

Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1989

Saul M. Froomkin

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

A Dunch for the Appellant

Matthews v R 1979 Criminal Appeal No. 22

Shamdasani v The King-EmperorELR [1945] AC 264

Isuora v RUNK [1953] 1 All ER 827

R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Blackburn (No.2)UNK [1968] 2 All ER 319

Contempt of court — Appeal against conviction

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Huggins, J.A.

The Appellant, One of Her Majesty's Counsel, is also Her Majesty's Attorney General for Bermuda. He was found by Martyn Ward, J. to be guilty of contempt in the face of the court when appearing for the Crown in a case upon indictment. It was argued by Mr. Perry, who appeared as amicus curiae, that in saying ‘I now hold you in contempt of court’ the judge was merely issuing a warning, but we think that by going on to say ‘I am not, however, going to order your detention …’ he clearly showed that he was convicting the Appellant of contempt, because until he had so convicted no question of ‘detention’ could arise under Section 4(1) of the Administration of Justice (Contempt of Court) Act, 1979, which was the authority under which he purported to be acting. It was against that conviction that the Appellant appealed. We allowed the appeal and said we would give our reasons later.

It is clear that there was a number of clashes between counsel and the bench in the course of a lengthy trial. It is not necessary for us to recount all the occasions on which the Judge was critical of the Appellant's conduct of the case and of his manner: counsel before us have very helpfully listed them for us and we adopt the categorization of these incidents ascribed to them by Mr. Dunch: they included accusations of shouting, giving evidence, use of hyperbole, being argumentative, lack of knowledge of the law and of his duty and discourtesy, and there was also criticism of his Department. On two occasions the Judge warned the Appellant that he was in danger of being charged with contempt. The first was when the Judge complained...