case 24,2003 违反禁令、藐视法庭

Marshall Properties Ltd. v R H Tomlinssons (Trowbridge) Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1314 (24 January 2003)

英格兰及威尔士上诉法院

在WARD大法官、LAWS大法官之前

Rothschild先生被命令移走一辆卡车，但他对法官说那车不是他的，拒绝执行禁令。在传唤证人之后，法官认为他在说谎，因此，以藐视法庭的罪名（准罪行），当场把他扣留在法院，并判决他三个月的监禁。Rothschild先生不服，提起了上诉。

Ward大法官认为法官做得太鲁莽了：
For my part, I would have thought that the sentence of three months was inappropriate for a breach which was the first breach of an order not tested by the court because no opportunity had been given to the applicant to have it looked at by the court on its merits. There was no return date for the injunction. There was no indication that application had been made. The procedure there was totally wrong, as the judge himself recognised.

他做出判决：

I would allow the appeal to the extent that, whereas the breaches should remain recorded, no penalty should be imposed in respect of either of them and the sentence of imprisonment should accordingly be quashed. 除非违反禁令的情况仍然存在，否则不得作出惩罚和监禁。

Laws大法官同意他的判决。

上诉得直。