Tom Wainwright is a member of the Garden Court Criminal Defence and Criminal Appeals Teams.
On 22 May 2025, the Court of Appeal quashed a finding of contempt made in relation to IS, a prospective juror at Bristol Crown Court.
In April 2024, IS attended at Bristol Crown Court having been summonsed for jury service. Prior to being empanelled, he explained that it would be contrary to his principles and personal beliefs to sit as a juror and he felt that he could not take the oath required or participate in proceedings. The Resident Judge, the Recorder of Bristol, duly found IS to be in contempt of court and fined him. IS later discovered that the finding of contempt had been recorded by the court as a criminal conviction, as a result of which he lost his employment as a door supervisor.
IS appealed and Tom Wainwright was appointed by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals to represent him. Given the complex issues involved, the Attorney General also appointed counsel to act as amicus curiae to the court.
It was agreed by both parties that contempt of court is not a criminal offence and should not have been recorded as such. On IS’s behalf, Tom further submitted that, although it was not clear whether the Recorder of Bristol had dealt with the matter as a contempt contrary to s.20 of the Juries Act 1974 or as a contempt contrary to common law, in any event, no contempt of court had been committed by the point at which the matter was referred to the Resident Judge. Furthermore, there had been a number of significant procedural failures by the Recorder, most importantly, that he had neglected to inform IS that he was entitled to seek legal advice and had not given him a reasonable opportunity to do so.
The Court of Appeal agreed that, whether or not IS’s actions amounted to a contempt, they raised complex issues of statutory interpretation and other important legal principles, points which were difficult for the Court to resolve without them being considered by the Resident Judge at first instance. What was clear was that the failure to advise IS of his right to legal advice meant that he had been deprived of the safeguards necessary before a serious finding was made against him. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the finding of contempt was quashed due to the lack of procedural fairness.
