Compass Rose Enterpises Ltd v Attorney-General [1988] SPLawRp 39; [1988] SPLR 165 (19 April 1988)

[1988] SPLR 165

IN THE COURT OF APEAL

COMPASS ROSE ENTERPRISES LTD

v

ATTORNEY – GENERAL

Gibbs V.P., Frost, Donne, Dillon, and Mitchell J.J.A.
19 April 1988

Criminal law — contempt of court — scandalizing the court — whether motion and affidavit seeking trial before a new judge on the grounds of perceived bias of first judge amounts to contempt of court.

Criminal law — contempt of court — procedure — need for specific allegations of contempt to be given to alleged contemnor — need for opportunity for contemnor to adduce evidence and obtain legal advice.

Criminal law — contempt of court — punishment — finite rather than indeterminate sentence to be imposed for criminal contempts.

Compass Rose Enterprises Ltd. and Orme, a director of the company, were summonsed by the Chief Justice to appear before him and answer a charge of contempt of court. The contempt alleged was a filing of a motion and affidavit seeking that a civil action involving Compass Rose be tried before a judge other than the Chief Justice on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion or a real likelihood of bias if it was heard by the Chief Justice. Other contempts arising out of the same matter were also alleged. At the hearing the Chief Justice would not agree to Orme calling witnesses or being represented by a lawyer. The Chief Justice fined Compass Rose $500 for contempt and committed Orme to prison until he purged himself of his contempt. Compass Rose and Orme appealed.

HELD:

(1) An alleged contemnor should have notice of specific allegations against him and a reasonable opportunity of being heard in his defence: page 186. Coward v. Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573 followed.
(2) The power to commit for contempt should be used sparingly. A request for a judge to disqualify himself on the grounds of bias could only rarely be regarded as contempt, for if a party contends that a judge is biased he is entitled to say so. Orme and Compass Rose were entitled to point to the facts which gave rise to their suspicion of bias, even if it was offensive to the judge: page 186.
(3) Imprisonment in cases of criminal contempt should be for a fixed term: page 186. Attorney-General v. James [1962] 2 Q.B. 637; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 740; 1 All E.R. 255 followed.

Other cases mentioned in judgment:
Chang Hang Kiu v. Piggott [1909] AC 312 (P.C.)
Ex parte Bellanto (1962) 63 SR (N.S.W.) 190
Ex parte Fernandez (1861) 30 LJCP 321; 10 CBNS; 4 LT 324; 142 ER 349
In re Pollard (1868) LR 2 PC 106; 5 Moo. P.C. (NS) 111
Izuora v. The Queen [1953] AC 327 (P.C.)
Lewis v. Judge Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 68