fbpx

Angry Litigant Narrowly Escapes Jail for Foul-Mouthed Abuse of Family Judge

15th December 2022 By

Judges are well aware that litigation is stressful and that those involved may become angry or frustrated – however, there is a point at which abusive behaviour crosses the line. In a case on point, a man whose foul-mouthed tirade left a family judge deeply shaken came within a whisker of being sent to prison.

During a telephone hearing, the man swore repeatedly at the judge and referred to her as ‘mate’. Despite several warnings, his angry interventions continued and he refused to listen to her. He said he was ‘not bothered’ by anything she had to say. He informed her that he was making an illegal recording of the hearing which he intended to make public. He was later summoned to appear before the High Court to answer an allegation that his behaviour amounted to contempt of court.

Ruling on the matter, the Court noted that judges perform a vitally important public duty and are sworn to preside over cases without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Although trained to show a degree of tolerance to emotional outbursts, they are entitled to conduct court hearings, and to make sometime life-changing decisions, without being subjected to abuse, either in or out of a courtroom.

By his behaviour, the man had shown himself unwilling to recognise the authority of the court. He had insulted the judge, been abusive towards her and disrupted the proceedings. She was understandably distressed and evidently concerned for the welfare of the man’s partner, who was present during the hearing and had complained that he had behaved in a similar manner towards her.

The Court found that the only appropriate punishment for such a serious contempt was a sentence of imprisonment. The man had, however, written a letter of apology to the judge, declaring himself disgusted by his own behaviour. His mental health difficulties may also have contributed to his loss of control. The Court imposed a 14-day prison sentence but suspended the term for 12 months.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Tenants Can Purchase Freehold When Landlord Cannot Be Found

11th June, 2024 By

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives qualifying leaseholders the right to join together to buy the freehold of their properties – a process known as collective enfranchisement. A recent case demonstrated that this right can be exercised even when the landlord cannot be found. The leaseholders of two flats in a terraced house wished to purchase it from the landlord, but were unable to ascertain his whereabouts and therefore could not serve notice on him under Section 13 of the Act. They therefore applied for an...

Court Refuses to Set Aside Divorce Order Applied for by Mistake

6th June, 2024 By

While the courts have a range of powers to set aside orders, they will only exercise them in limited circumstances. In a somewhat surprising case that has attracted much comment, the High Court declined to set aside a final order of divorce that had been applied for by mistake. A couple separated in January 2023, after more than 21 years of marriage. In October that year, while financial remedy proceedings were still ongoing, the wife's legal representatives inadvertently applied for a final order of divorce in respect of her instead...

Waiting Time for Grants of Probate Falls

3rd June, 2024 By

Following concerns last year about delays in processing probate applications, recent figures from HM Courts and Tribunals Service show that waiting times for grants of probate are continuing to improve. The average time from submission of a probate application to probate being granted fell to 11.3 weeks in March 2024, a decrease from 13.7 weeks in February and 13.8 weeks in January. This is the lowest figure since March 2023, when the average was 10.8 weeks. The longest waiting time since then was in November, at 15.8 weeks: that month,...

Late Appeal Against Tax Penalties Rejected

31st May, 2024 By

It is incumbent on taxpayers to make sure they fully comply with their obligations to file returns and pay any tax due. The point was illustrated by a recent case in which a taxpayer whose return had not been received by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) failed to persuade the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that he should be permitted to appeal against the resulting penalties. On the evening of 31 January 2014, the man had completed his 2012/13 Income Tax return on HMRC's website. Shortly afterwards he went to Cyprus, and...