Due Process of Law - Lord Denning (Part – I)

The Victimisation of witnesses

Witnesses are vital to the administration of justice. They should give evidence freely
and without fear. But they may be threatened with dire consequences if they tell the truth or
they may be punished afterwards for telling the truth.

Does intimidation and victimisation amount to contempt of court?

Case – 1: The trade union member is deprived of his office

Attorney General v Butterworth

Mr. Butterworth, Bailey and Etherton were on the committee of the branch of a trade union.
One of the members Mr. Greenlees had given evidence before the Restrictive Practice Court
which they disliked. So Mr. Butterworth and others determined to punish Mr. Greenlees for it.
They deprived him of his office as branch delegate and treasurer. It was reported to the
Attorney General and he considered that the action of Mr. Butterworth and the others was
contempt. He applied to the Restrictive Practices Court and it was held not as contempt. The
Attorney General appealed to the court of Appeal.

The relevant principles enunciated in the judgement:

There can be no greater contempt than to intimidate a witness before he gives his evidence or
to victimise him afterwards for having given it. The witness cannot give his evidence freely
and frankly if he is liable to be punished for it by those who dislike the evidence he has given.
If this could be done in a single case with impunity, witnesses in other cases would be
unwilling to come forward to give evidence or even they come forward they would hesitate to
speak the truth.

The authority of Lord Langdale MR in Littler v Thomson is good enough for this:

“If witnesses in this way deterred from coming forward in aid of legal proceedings, it will be
impossible that justice can be administered. It would be better that the doors of the courts of
justice were at once closed”.

Hence, when an act is done with the predominant motive of punishing a witness, there can be
no doubt that it is a contempt of court. But even though it is not predominant motive, yet
nevertheless if it is an actuating motive influencing the step taken, it is a contempt of court.

Thus, in the present case as the predominant motive in the mind of Butterworth, Bailey and
Etherton was to punish Greenlees for having given evidence in the R.E.N.A case their action
amounts to contempt of court. They apologised and paid the imposed cost.
Case – 2: The tenant is evicted from his house

Chapman v Honig

Point - The contemnor can be punished by the courts by fine or imprisonment. But can
the sufferer sue the contemnor for damages?

A house was let out by a land lord in a tenement flats. The landlord forcibly evicted one
tenant called Harrand. That tenant sued the landlord for damages for wrongful eviction.
Chapman who had been tenant since 1959, in the next floor, had seen what had happened on
the second floor. Harrand wanted him to give evidence in his action against the landlord.
Chapman was hesitant to give evidence against his landlord and did not go voluntarily to the
court. But he was subpoenaed to do so and gave evidence in obedience to the subpoena. He
gave evidence on 22 June 1962, at the hearing before Judge Baxter. On the very next day, 23
June 1962, the landlord served on Chapman notice to quit his first-floor flat on 28 July 1962.
The reason he did that was simply because Chapman had given evidence for Harrand. The
object of the landlord was, the judge found, “to punish or victimise Mr. Chapman for having
given evidence”. On the judge’s finding the landlord gave this notice to quit and attempted to
evict the tenant vindictively in order to punish Chapman for having given evidence against
him. That is in itself a contempt of court – a criminal offence and punishable accordingly. A
injunction was granted and the judge gave judgements for the plaintiff for £50 damages for
contempt of court. The landlord preferred an appeal.

The appeal was heard by a three judges’ bench. Lord Denning was one of the Judges. A split
verdict was given.

Lord Denning’s finding:

The Law which compels a witness to give evidence is duty bound to protect him from being
punished for doing it. If a landlord intimidates a tenant by threatening with a notice to quit,
the court must be able to protect the tenant by granting injunction to restrain the landlord
from carrying out his threat. If the landlord victimises a tenant by actually giving him a notice
to quit, the court must be able to protect the tenant by holding the notice to quit to be invalid.
Hence he agreed with the judge’s order of injunction and damages of £50 and dismissed the
appeal.

Finding of other two Judges:

The victimisation of witness is not a contempt of court in itself. It is only a contempt if other
people are likely to get to know of it and be deterred from giving evidence in other actions.
Also, the notice to quit was valid and that the tenant had no remedy in damages. As a general
proposition there can never be a right of action for damages for contempt of court.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.