- 39
A
B
-
adjourn contempt proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal
proceedings where it is satisfied that there would otherwise be a real risk
A
B
of prejudice which might lead to injustice. In an extreme case, the court
C
D
may even stay either the contempt proceedings or criminal proceedings.
See M v M (Contempt: Committal) [1997] 1 FLR 762, per Lord Bingham
C
D
at p 764B-D; Barnet London Borough Council v Hurst [2003] 1 WLR 722,
E
F
per Brooke LJ at [33].
These safeguards minimize any real risk of
prejudice that an offender may face in two sets of parallel proceedings, and
E
F
address any concern about the impression as regards the proper and fair
G
administration of justice by the Secretary bringing both proceedings
H
against the same person for precisely the same circumstances.
I
70.
J
Further, in terms of punishment for contempt, it is
well-established that the court will avoid punishing the offender twice for
G
H
I
J
the same events: Hale v Tanner (Practice Note) [2000] 1 WLR 2377, per
K
L
Hale LJ (as she then was) at p 2381. Contempt proceedings are ordinarily
dealt with first, which would ensure that, if proved, the contemnor would
K
L
be punished before any sentence in parallel criminal proceedings:
M
N
Secretary for Justice v Chan Po Hong [2022] 5 HKLRD 185, per
Coleman J at [67]. In Slade v Slade (CA) [2010] 1 WLR 1262, Wall LJ at
M
N
[35] - [38] identified three guiding principles for punishing the contemnor:
O
P
O
(1)
The court is not sentencing for the criminal equivalent of what
the contemnor has done.
Q
R
P
(If that occurred, the sentence
would be reduced by the appellate court: Smith v Smith [1991]
2 FLR 55, per Neill LJ at p 63E-F, and per Balcombe LJ at p
Q
R
64F-G; Tweddell, ibid.)
S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V