• About the Commission
• Publications
  • Reports and Papers
    • Projects 100 to 119
    • Projects 90 to 99
      • Project 99
      • Project 98
      • Project 97
      • Project 96
      • Project 95
      • Project 94
      • Project 93(I)
      • Project 93(II)
      • Project 93(III)
      • 30th Anniversary Reform Implementation Report
      • Project 92
      • Project 91
      • Project 90
    • Projects 80 to 89
    • Projects 70 to 79
    • Projects 60 to 69
    • Projects 50 to 59
    • Projects 40 to 49
    • Projects 30 to 39
    • Projects 20 to 29
    • Projects 10 to 19
    • Projects 1 to 9
  • Annual Reports
• Current Projects
• Contribute to Law Reform
• Links
• Contact Us

Project 93(III) - Contempt by disobedience to the orders of the court

Project No. 93(III)

Commenced: 2000
Completed: 2003

Any proposed reform of the law of contempt, including disobedience contempt, must be consistent with the limitations on legislative power, express or implied, in the Western Australian Constitution. This issue is pertinent because the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court includes an inherent jurisdiction consequent upon its characterisation as a superior court of record. The sources of power in contempt matters come from both the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) and through the Court’s earlier creation by the British Government. Section 6 of the Supreme Court Act continues, but does not create, the Supreme Court so it can reasonably be said that the inherent jurisdiction has an operation independent of the Supreme Court Act and therefore of the state Parliament.

Terms of Reference

The term of reference in the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia's reference on the law of contempt was:

to inquire into and report upon the principles, practices and procedures relating to contempt by disobedience to the orders of the court and whether the law pertaining thereto should be reformed and, if so, in what manner.

Outcomes

The Commission made 12 recommendations that seek to resolve key issues as to whether or not:

• codification is a priority;
• the distinction between civil and criminal contempt should remain;
• the process for prosecuting an alleged contempt of court should continue as a summary process under the Supreme Court Rules or whether it should follow another form of criminal (or civil) procedure;
• the sanctions presently available should continue, including imprisonment, fines and, in the case of a corporation, sequestration of assets;
• any limitation should be placed on penalties; and
• the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be strengthened in recognition of the public interest in securing compliance with court orders.

Last updated: 31-Jan-2017

[ back to top ]