A Comparative Study of Contempt of Court in Iran and England's ‎Legal System

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Allameh Rafiee Institute of Higher Education, Qazvin, Iran. & ‎Department of Criminal and Criminology Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, ‎Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Criminal and Criminology Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, ‎Tehran, Iran‎

10.22059/jcl.2024.370049.634593

Abstract

Undoubtedly, the authority and acceptability of governments are tied to the credibility and reliability of the judicial power of that country. In progressive legal systems, contempt of court and any behavior that distorts the power and credibility of the judicial system, or makes it face a serious risk, or reduces people's trust in the administration of justice, is a crime against judicial justice. Hence, contempt of court has been recognized as an indictable, strict liability, and unpardonable offense. This article studies the behaviors that are interpreted as contempt of court in the English legal system and has explained the existing divisions of contempt of court in common and statutory laws. After this review, by using a descriptive-analytical research method, it has noted the existing gaps in the Iranian legal system. finally, by accepting this assumption, that Iran's courts have complete independence, solutions have been proposed to support the judicial position and the administration of justice in the domestic system in cases of contempt of court. However, if the necessary infrastructure is not provided to grant broad powers to the courts to severely deal with cases of contempt of court, granting such power will somehow increase judicial tyranny and restrict public freedoms.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    • کتاب‌‌ها
    1. خزانی، منوچهر (1377). فرآیند کیفری (مجموعه مقالات). چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش.
    2. کوشا، جعفر (1381). جرایم علیه عدالت قضایی. چاپ اول، تهران: نشر میزان.
    3. یکرنگی، محمد (1391). جرایم علیه اجرای عدالت قضایی. چاپ دوم، تهران: انتشارات خرسندی.
    4. میرمحمدصادقی، حسین (1394). جرایم علیه اشخاص. تهران: نشر میزان.
    5. مهرا، نسرین (1392). دانشنامۀ حقوق کیفری انگلستان. چاپ اول، تهران: نشر میزان.
    6. مهرا، نسرین (1398). دایره‌المعارف عدالت کیفری انگلستان. چاپ اول، تهران: نشر میزان.

     

    • مقالات
    1. اثیمی، حمیدرضا و محمودی جانکی، فیروز (1403). ارزیابی «پیوند حقوقی»، امکان‌سنجی اصلاحات در حقوق کیفری و محدودیت‌های آن. مجلۀ حقوق تطبیقی، 15 (1)، 1-22.
    2. توجهی، عبدالعلی و مسعودیان، مصطفی (1392). تحلیل فقهی- حقوقی جرایم علیه عدالت قضایی در مرحلۀ دادرسی و صدور حکم. دومین کنفرانس الگوی اسلامی ایرانی پیشرفت.
    3. نجارزادگان، فتح‌الله و مسعودیان، مصطفی (1388). بررسی تطبیقی جرایم علیه عدالت قضایی از دیدگاه قرآن و حقوق کیفری. مجلۀ پژوهش‌های میان‌رشته‌ای قرآن کریم، 3 (1)، 33-40.

     

    ب( انگلیسی

    • Books
    1. Com, L. (2013). THE LAW COMMISSION CONTEMPT, Contempt of Court(1): Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications.
    2. Cram, I. et al. (2010). Borrie and Lowe: The Law of Contempt. LexisNexis (Borrie \& Lowe: Law of Contempt). Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=W3HkPgAACAAJ.
    3. Hammond KNZM, H. S. G. et al. (2014). IP36 Contempt in Modern New Zealand.
    4. New Zealand Law Commission (2017). R140 Reforming the Law of Contempt of Court: A Modern Statute - Available at: http://lawcom.govt.nz/our-projects/contempt-court?id=1417.

     

    • Articles
    1. Burd, R. and Horan, J. (2012). Protecting the right to a fair trial in the 21st century - has trial by jury been caught in the world wide web?, Criminal Law Journal, 36 (2), pp. 103–122.
    2. Crone, T. (2021). Contempt of Court, Law and the Media. doi: 10.4324/9780080496030-24.
    3. Livingston, M. (2000). Washington Law Review Disobedience and Contempt, 75 (2).

     

    • Cases
    1. Attorney General v Davey and Attorney General v Beard [2013] EWHC 2317
    2. Balogh v St. Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73.
    3. Director of the Serious Fraud Office v B [2014] A.C. 1246.
    4. Hinch v A-G (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15, 46.
    5. Morgan v State of Victoria (2008) 22 VR 237, 269 [145]
    6. Registrar, Court of Appeal v Collins; Collins v Registrar, Court of Appeal [1982] 1 NSWLR 682, 708.
    7. Robertson and Gough [2007] HCJAC 63.
    8. The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom no 6538/74, 26/04/1979, ECHR.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 15, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter 2024-2025
December 2024
Pages 497-520

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics