- 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