No: 201105820 B5 
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Crim 3179
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday, 16 December 2011

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD 

MR JUSTICE ROYCE 
 
MRS JUSTICE SHARP DBE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

v 

ANTHONY JONES
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss A Jarratt appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr H Lodge appeared on behalf of the Crown
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD:  The appellant, Anthony Jones, who is now aged 23 years, was on 25 October 2011 found at Blackfriars Crown Court to be in contempt of court, and he was sentenced to 7 days' imprisonment.  He appeals against his conviction and sentence as of right.  An application for bail pending this appeal was made to Irwin J, who concluded that the appellant did not have an arguable appeal.  He refused bail and the sentence has been served.  
2.	The trial was taking place, in court number 1, of members of a gang said by the prosecution to be the "Thugs of Stonebridge".  The appellant's sister was one of the defendants.  They were charged in an indictment alleging attempted murder.  Eventually, two of the defendants were convicted of that count.  The appellant's sister was convicted of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  
3.	The trial was attended by difficult security and management considerations.  A young man, who was unarmed, had been shot in the back with a sawn‑off shotgun at close range at about 2 pm while at a tube station.  He was at that time flanked by two innocent members of the public.  Witnesses were giving evidence anonymously and behind screens.  Armed police officers were in the vicinity and two uniformed officers were present in court during the trial.  Knife searches were made upon those who were attending the public gallery.  Tensions were high during the trial.  One of the problems was that, by leaning out of the public gallery, members of the public, who included the appellant, could if they wished obtain a sightline to the witness.  The judge was most anxious to prevent such an activity occurring.  He required absolute obedience to his instructions at moments during the trial, so as to ensure that nothing untoward should interrupt the proper progress of the trial.  The mother of one of the defendants had already been excluded for disobedience to the judge's directions, and we are informed by Miss Jarratt, who appears on behalf of the appellant, that a second person had also been excluded from the public gallery.
4.	The evidence was that not only was the appellant the brother of one of the accused, he was also an associate of other defendants.  During the proceedings on the morning of 25 October, HHJ Marron released the jury for a break and they left court.  When they had departed, the appellant, who had been attending for some 14 days and therefore well knew of the judge's instructions, began a loud conversation with someone in court below the public gallery.  We take up the judge's findings from the transcript of proceedings which took place at 4.09 pm the same day:
"I issued warnings from the beginning of this case and repeated them about the need for absolutely perfect conduct and no communication between the public gallery and the dock.  [The appellant] was standing in the back of the public gallery, talking loudly and laughing to a member of the defence team; I do not know who.  The court was still in session.  I asked him not to do that.  I asked him to please leave the court.  That was said on three occasions.  I said 'Don't come back'.  He simply looked at me, putting on his coat, and was laughing at me."
5.	On the judge's instructions, the appellant was arrested and placed in the cells.  The judge did not take precipitate action.  He arranged for representation of the appellant and allowed time for reflection.  This was, nevertheless, in the nature of a summary proceeding, since the contempt, if that is what it was, was made in the face of the court.  
6.	The judge had the appellant brought up later in the day.  The judge related to counsel representing the appellant, Miss Jarratt, the facts on which he proposed to act and to which we have just referred.  Miss Jarratt said in response:
"I was able to pick up various pieces from speaking to others and to take instructions from himself.  He would first like to say he is extremely sorry for the way that it was perceived that he had behaved.  He said he was standing up to stretch, effectively.  He attends here as his sister is one of the defendants.  He forgot where he was essentially momentarily, having attended every day for two weeks.  He said he was tired at the prospect of having to stand up again and being told to go in and out while witnesses were dealt with and simply forgot himself.  
"He is extremely sorry and understands the seriousness of it, having been sent immediately downstairs and now spent a considerable amount of the afternoon in the cells and missed out what was to be heard in a trial that he otherwise says that he has been here trying to pay close attention to.  He is extremely concerned about what may happen to his sister and the outcome of these matters.  He did not wish to show you any disrespect."
7.	It will be noted that omitted from Miss Jarratt's apology on the appellant's behalf was any acknowledgement that the appellant had been talking loudly to a member of the defence team and had laughed when admonished by the judge.  It follows that the appellant was putting forward an apology but in terms which suggested that the judge may have misinterpreted his conduct.  It is now submitted that the judge was wrong to find the appellant in contempt, since there was no contemptuous behaviour and the judge did not enquire into the circumstances, in breach of the fundamental rule of fairness.  
8.	In our view, these arguments are without substance.  The judge addressed his remarks to the appellant on three occasions.  He saw for himself the appellant's contemptuous reaction.  No further enquiry was required or indeed was appropriate.  This was a contempt in the face of the court.  The appellant, while apologising, did so in a manner which failed to recognise the seriousness of the contempt.  We are well aware, as no doubt was Judge Marron, of the advice given by this court to judges faced with misbehaviour in court, most recently exemplified by Moses LJ in R v Huggins [2007] EWCA Crim 732, [2007] 2 Cr App R 8.  In the present case, this was not a release of emotion upon, for example, the return of a verdict; it was a deliberate breach of the judge's order made for the proper management of the trial.  It took place in a context in which the exigencies of the trial process required exceptional security measures.  The appellant's response to the judge's request to desist was plainly contemptuous as that word is in ordinary use, and was not a technical breach of the requirement for good order in court.  
9.	Public confidence in, and respect for, criminal proceedings demands appropriate behaviour from all participants and observers.  It matters not that the jury was absent from court.  If members of the public choose to disrupt court proceedings in defiance of the judge's express instructions, they must expect appropriate action to be taken.  In our view, a detention for a period of 7 days was an appropriate reaction and the appeal is dismissed.  
10.	Thank you very much for your help, Miss Jarratt, particularly for your presentation of the authorities.
11.	MISS JARRATT:  I am grateful.  My Lord, might I request a representation order to be granted?
12.	LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD:  With gritted teeth, but yes, you may have a representation order.
13.	MISS JARRATT:  I am grateful, thank you.