IN THE COURTROOM
Contempt In The Face Of The Court : Paps-Garnon Vs. Edwards
By Vandie S. Nabie
Dec 21, 2007, 15:28

Of the three superior Faculties of medieval vocation, the Law ranks supreme followed by Medicine and Theology.  It is in this sense that lawyers are regarded as belonging to an ‘Honourable Profession’.

However events in recent years in Sierra Leone especially in the intercourse among professional brethren in our courts have gravely eroded the time- honoured image of the profession.

In the current decade in particular the argument is vigorously rehearsed even amongst the most elastic sector of the public conscience that the ethics of the profession is in progressive decline and the much-touted acclaim of an “Honourable Profession” is nothing less than a ridiculous professional doxa.   The lament of Shakespeare’s King Lear now echoes in the Bar between both the junior and senior.

                        Why brand us with base?  With baseness?

As a helpful foil and productive trope to this malaise, the Public is now eager to arbitrate rather than litigate.  Litigation which ought to be the gentle solvent of dispute is today a ruinous luxury in Sierra Leone.

PAPS-GARNON Vs. EDWARDS M/A 3/07 UNREPORTED(?) There is no sadder illustration of the hemorrhage of the ethical code of conduct of the legal profession than the inglorious encounter between - what the tabloids editorialized on Tuesday 4th December 2007-  “two prominent lawyers fight in court” in the full view or presence of the presiding judge, the Honourable Mrs. Justice A. Showers.  This is not only contempt of court, but CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT. (Contemptus in facie curise)  

WHAT IS CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT?

The old quaint phrase “Contempt in the face of the court” has a long and solid pedigree.  The authorities go back to 1631 at Salisbury when a prisoner condemned for felony threw a brick-bat which whizzed past without hitting Justice Richardson. The case is reported succinctly and concisely in 3 Dyer at 188b: 

                 For this an indictment was immediately drawn ………….

                 against the prisoner and his right hand cut off and fixed to the  

                Gibbet upon which he was immediately hanged in the presence of  

                the court. 

The concept acquired authoritative status in 1765 in R.V. Almon (1765) Wilm243, 255,97ER94, 100 where Wilmot J. summarized the principles of contempt of court “as conduct which scandalizes the court and impedes the due administration of justice”.  Some 115 years later, the doctrine found livid expression in New South Wales in Re; THE EVENING NEWSPAPER (1880) 1NSWLR211 at p237.  Scandalizing the court by scurrilous abuse or unbecoming conduct or unseemly levity received added impetus in the judgment of Lord Russell, CJ in R.V. GRAY (1900) 2QB 36 at 40:

          1.  Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a court or a

               judge of the court into contempt or to lower his or her authority is a

               contempt of court. 

          2.  Any act done or writing published calculated to obstruct or interfere

               with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the courts is

              a contempt of court.

OSWALD’s, “ON CONTEMPT, COMMITTAL AND ATTACHMENT “(1910) 3^rd ed. 58, adds a third category:  “any conduct which prejudices mankind against persons before the cause is heard is a contempt of court”. 

It is important to note that the offence is attached whenever the conduct is calculated, NOT INTENDED, to affront the dignity of the court.

(See RV ODHAMS PRESS LTD., Ex Parte Attorney-General. (1957) QB73.

The rationale for this discipline was eloquently enunciated in HELMORE V. SMITH (1886) 35 Ch. D.449:

“The object of the discipline ……. says BOWEN LJ, is not to vindicate the dignity of the court or the person of the judge but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice”.

Every court therefore has an inherent power to fine or imprison for a contempt committed in the face of the court.  This is lucidly phrased in 8 Halbury’s Laws of England 3^rd ed. at 5 as “a necessary incident of every court of justice” It is not necessary to bring the offender before the court because he is there already (DENNING, 1980: 11).  The learned editors of RUSSELL, ON CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOUR 8^th ed. at 508 note that

the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court is

 traceable to the authority of the Court of King’s Bench

 as the custos morum, assumed on the extinction

 of the Star Chamber.

In a seminar judgement in In re Wm. THOMAS SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED (1930) 2Ch. At 373 LORD HARDWICKE pronounced as follows: 

There cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and to their character. 

In an earlier judgement in HUNT V CLARKE (1889) 61 LT 343 Cotton LJ stated that the summary jurisdiction conferred on the court in this respect is to “enable justice to be duly and properly administered without any interruption or interference”. 

In PABS-GARNON V. EDWARDS the headlines on Tuesday read like a fairy tale.  For two lawyers to exchange fists in open court is not only corrosive of professional standards but equally threatens to suffocate moral decency.   One of the brightest judicial minds in Sierra Leone, the Hon. Mr. Justice George Gelega-King once remarked obiter in the case of Africana Tokeh Village, (M/A 2/94 unreported) in the following words.

Ours is an honourable profession.  Even if a

 colleague hits you below the belt do not cross

 swords with him in open court.  Counsel must

 always display exemplary coolness even under fire.   

TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE

Or suppose Mrs. Justice Showers did not see the blows but was told about it when in court or even after the hearing on Tuesday could she commit for contempt?  Similar questions came up for determination in 1975 in BALOGH V. ST. ALBANS CROWN COURT (1975) 1 QB73.  LORD DENNING summed up the answers with a degree of simplicity and economy that could hardly be improved:

“Contempt in the face of the court is the same thing as

 contempt which the court can punish of its own motion.

 IT REALLY MEANS CONTEMPT IN THE COGNISANCE

 OF THE COURT.  It does not matter that the judge saw

 it with his own eyes or it was reported to him by the

 officers of the court, or by others”.

 Over a century ago Erye CJ presciently observed that. “These powers ….. have always been examined for the advancement of justice and the good of the public”. (See ex Parte Fernandez, (1861) 10 CBNS 3, 38. 

It is so necessary that until recently the judges exercised it without any appeal.  Appeal was only afforded in England in 1960. (DENNING, 1980:11)  

The cases illustrated in this Summary are English or other Commonwealth authorities but had been cited with approval in the following Sierra Leone cases:

1.  R.V. SHEKPENDEH, EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

     1957-60 ALR SL 213

2.   R.V. SHAMEL 1957-60 – ALR SL 168

3.   In re MANNI 1964-66 - ALR SL 557

4.   Johnson V.  R. 1970-71 –ALR SL 122

They therefore carry more than persuasive weight- if not actually binding - in our jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION  

What makes Pabs-Garnon v. Edwards nauseatingly putrid is that one of the parties is the current President of the Sierra Leone Bar Association.   In the days of the late Justice Luke, Harding, Short, and today Gelaga-King, Tholla Thompson, and Abel Stronge both counsel would experience the Yuletide behind prison doors.  These were the Good Old Days when judges carried themselves with appropriate gravity and were accorded the respect of centuries.  Counsel who fell out of step was immediately reviled as a Cassandra.  Indeed there had been instances when contempt in the face of the court had been met with professional forfeit. Today counsel who shouts and fights in open court is revered as an Archon.  Pabs-Garnon and Edwards should emulate the forensic duel between S.C. Berthern-Macauley and C.B. Rogers-Wright of late and recently between the present Chief Justice, Ade Renner-Thomas and Arnold Bishop Gooding - tense, bitter and at times acidic exchanges but never with the fists.  The Garnon/Edwards example is particularly infuriating when they failed and/or refused to make abject apologies to propitiate the court.  Accordingly, and in line with this humble depiction of the worth and efficacy of the doctrine of contempt …… the judge should have penalized both counsel breve menu and with condign punishment. It is still not late for justice to take its toll.