Jersey Judgment

Hall v Att. Gen. [2002] JLR_Note 4 (17 December 2001)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Making an abusive remark to a judge amounts to criminal contempt of court.

Court disposition

not specified

02

Material facts

Parties

Hall

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Contempt of Court / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether an abusive remark to a judge constitutes criminal contempt of court

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    common law

    Abusive remarks to a judge may constitute criminal contempt of court.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Making an abusive remark to a judge amounts to criminal contempt of court.

Court disposition

not specified

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

Judgment

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Hall v Att. Gen. [2002] JLR_Note 4 (17 December 2001) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2001/JLR02N004.html Cite as: [2002] JLR_Note 4 [ New search ] [ Help ] Hall v Att. Gen. 2002 JLR Note 4 (17 December 2001) Courts-contempt of court-criminal contempt-abusive remark to judge The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2002 JLR Note 4 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2001/JLR02N004.html

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.