PERKINS v HARRIS [1994] NSWCA 251

PERKINS v HARRIS [1994] NSWCA 251

The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Harris said the words alleged by Perkins, and thus the charge of criminal contempt was not proved.

Parties
Claimant: Kevin Perkins; Opponent: Arthur Harris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 1994
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceeding / Judgment on Motion Alleging Contempt in Relation to Pending Defamation Proceedings
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Criminal Contempt, Standard of Proof, Witness Intimidation
Contempt of Court Defamation Criminal Contempt Standard of Proof Witness Intimidation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Perkins

Claimant

Arthur Harris

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceeding / Judgment on Motion Alleging Contempt in Relation to Pending Defamation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether words spoken by Harris to Bristow constituted contempt of court by threatening or attempting to dissuade a witness from giving evidence in defamation proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the alleged words were proved beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Harris said the words alleged by Perkins, and thus the charge of criminal contempt was not proved.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Motion dismissed with costs.