Santiago v R

Santiago v R

A judge retains jurisdiction to punish contempt even after the trial has concluded, and summary proceedings are permissible where facts are undisputed and the administration of justice is at stake. Article 6 ECHR does not require remitting contempt proceedings to another judge where there is no real possibility of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Steven Anthony Santiago; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Findings of Contempt
Outcome
Appeal against findings of contempt dismissed; sentence on second contempt adjusted to run concurrently.
Legal Topics
Summary Contempt Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Trial Judge, Article 6 ECHR, Procedure for Contempt, Administration of Justice
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Human Rights Summary Contempt Proceedings Jurisdiction of Trial Judge Article 6 ECHR Procedure for Contempt Administration of Justice

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Anthony Santiago

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Findings of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to punish contempt after the trial concluded
  2. 2 Whether summary contempt proceedings breached Article 6 ECHR requirements for impartiality
  3. 3 Whether refusal to attend sentencing constitutes contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

A judge retains jurisdiction to punish contempt even after the trial has concluded, and summary proceedings are permissible where facts are undisputed and the administration of justice is at stake. Article 6 ECHR does not require remitting contempt proceedings to another judge where there is no real possibility of bias. Refusal to attend sentencing when ordered constitutes contempt of court.

Court Disposition

Appeal against findings of contempt dismissed; sentence on second contempt adjusted to run concurrently.

Orders

  • Findings of contempt upheld
  • One month term of imprisonment for second contempt to run concurrently rather than consecutively