In the legal arena Judicial Officers are sometimes required to deal with matters where contempt of Court is said to occur. In a recent case, in the Supreme Court at Brisbane, a very interesting “discussion” took place between the Judge allocated to preside over the case, and a male defendant who had very recently (apparently that morning) dismissed his legal team.
Contempt of Court can come about in a number of different ways. In the Criminal Courts it usually occurs in situations where a person’s conduct is such that it tends to interfere with the course of justice by disrupting the Court proceedings, or by making insulting remarks to the Judicial Officer.
If a person is charged with contempt of Court then a prison sentence will almost inevitably follow, so as to make the community aware that persons before the Court must show respect for the Court, and its Judicial Officers, having regard to the role of the Court, and its Judicial Officers, in our community.
In the matter that occurred in the Brisbane Supreme Court the male defendant was charged with a serious offence. It was the second occasion on which his matter had been made ready for trial. On the first occasion the defendant had dismissed his legal team immediately prior to the start of that trial. As a result, that first trial was aborted, and a new trial date was set, allowing sufficient time for the defendant to engage another legal team. It is noteworthy that any Judicial Officer is reluctant to grant an adjournment of a trial unless there is good reason. This is because the cost of running a trial, to the State of Queensland, is estimated to be $30,000.00 per day. Such expense would therefore be wasted when a trial is aborted without good reason.
A second legal team was engaged, and were ready for trial. However, on the day before trial the defendant refused to have discussions with his legal team. On the day of trial the defendant informed the legal team that he was dismissing them, and was not providing them with any further instructions.
Prior to the defendant being brought into Court the Judge dealt with some preliminary issues. The defendant’s legal team were in Court, for a short time, explaining the difficulties that they had encountered on the previous day, in attempting to obtain instructions from the defendant. After the preliminary issues were dealt with, and prior to the defendant being brought into Court, the trial Judge asked the defendant’s Barrister “I take it that you are content for me to do the talking when he (the defendant) comes in to Court?”. The answer given by the Barrister turned out to be prophetic when he responded “and the listening, your Honour”.
When the defendant was brought into Court he informed the Judge that he had dismissed his legal team, and that he wanted an adjournment for his trial so that he could engage a new legal team.
The Judge bluntly informed the defendant “you tried that last time”. The Judge was clearly having none of that and told the defendant that he was not going to permit the trial to be adjourned again.
During the course of the next few minutes there was a strong debate between the trial Judge and the defendant. The defendant variously made the following comments to the Judge.“stick your trial up your_____”, “get stuffed”,“I am not going to _____ stop swearing at you”,“I am not _____ doing what you say. Up you!”, “What do you want, a Mickey Mouse badge.. stick it on your fat chest…. Come on fatso, what have you got to say to that?”, “No, listen here lard ass”.
At one point the Judge said to the defendant “is there anything you want to say in relation to me making an Order?” The defendant replied “well, you can Order what you like….order me a _____ pizza while you’re at it”.
When the trial Judge gave leave for the defendant’s legal team to withdraw from the Court (and therefore withdraw from acting for the defendant), the defendant colourfully described them as “_____dogs”, and equally as colourfully told them where to “go”.
The end of this episode in Court was that the Judge Ordered that the trial would continue. The defendant was therefore not granted his request for an adjournment. The defendant apparently changed his plea, and pleaded guilty, to the original charge. Following the conclusion of the sentence, the Judge ordered that the transcript of the words which were said in Court, that morning, be referred to the Crown Law Office for a determination as to whether a charge of Contempt of Court should be brought against the defendant.
The Judge showed substantial restraint in the manner in which he dealt with the verbal attack unleashed upon him by this defendant. During that attack the defendant apparently used swear words on at least 93 occasions and otherwise made many insulting remarks to the trial Judge.
It is apparent, from a reading of the transcript, that the Judge remained cool and calm, and ultimately achieved his objective of ensuring that this defendant, by his verbal onslaught, did not obtain a further adjournment of his trial. The Judge made a comment “I was actually called much worse on the Rugby field”.
It is the writer’s view that if the Judge had responded in kind then it could have been argued, at a later time, that the Judge should not have presided over the trial, or should have stood down from conducting the trial, so as to eliminate any argument about perception of bias against
the defendant.
Whatever sentence was imposed on this defendant, when he pleaded guilty, is now likely to be substantially increased. There would seem little doubt that a further period of imprisonment will result if this defendant pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, a charge of Contempt of Court. The question needs to be asked “what will he say to the next Judicial Officer who deals with that matter?”
