West, Re
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ian Stuart West, a barrister, was found in contempt and fined £500 by Judge Kelson for his conduct during a preliminary hearing. West appealed under the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The appeal was allowed due to procedural irregularities in the contempt proceedings, leading to the setting aside of the contempt finding. However, West's conduct was deemed wilful defiance and serious misconduct. The court directed that the Bar Standards Board consider the judgment.
Judgment
Sir Brian Leveson P :
On 25 April 2014, in the Crown Court at Durham, following summary contempt proceedings, Ian Stuart West, a barrister, was found by His Honour Judge Kelson Q.C. to be in contempt of court: he was ordered to pay a fine of £500. The alleged contempt arose out of the his conduct whilst instructed to act as defence counsel at a preliminary hearing held in the Crown Court on 14 April 2014 in the case R v Ingham .
Mr West, represented pro bono by Mr Bryan Cox Q.C. (who similarly represented him at the contempt hearing) appeals the finding of contempt pursuant to s. 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 . We are grateful for the help that Mr Cox has provided but, given the issues which arise, the court sought the assistance of an amicus curiae and we are also grateful to Mr Oliver Glasgow who was instructed by the Attorney General to act in that capacity: he has dealt with the principles but not made any submissions on the merits. Although, initially, there was a reporting restriction in relation to these proceedings so as not to prejudice the hearing of the criminal case at the centre of this appeal, it no longer bites: we were told that the defendant, Paul Ingham has subsequently pleaded guilty and been sentenced.
The Facts
On the morning of 14 April 2014, a preliminary hearing took place in the case of Mr Ingham, a postmaster or former postmaster who faced allegations of theft and perverting the course of justice. He was represented by the appellant. No plea was due to be entered that day but a timetable was agreed and a trial date set for 10 September 2014.
The material available at the hearing for the court (and the defence) consisted of a police summary running to 7 pages, 12 witness statements totalling 24 pages and a summary of the police interviews of some 20 pages in length. Having read the summary of the case, the judge noted that in the final interview, the defendant was asked about his failure to refer to his wife’s’ heavy indebtedness, the fact that he had some £2,500 hidden in a laundry basket and his conflicting accounts of how a paper band dated 17 March 2014 around some of the money could come to be present. In the circumstances, Judge Kelson determined to exercise the case management powers available to him pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 (“ CPR ”).
He invited the appellant to indicate whether any issues were likely to arise, particularly in relation to the admissibility of the interview