The full judgment is at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/yaxley-lennon-full-judgment-1.pdf
Para 26: "The law of contempt exists to protect the course of proceedings from interference, to safeguard the fairness and integrity of proceedings and to ensure that orders of the court are obeyed. It comes in many forms, both statutory and under the common law. Courts may themselves initiate proceedings for contempt in some circumstances when it is necessary to do so to protect the interests of justice in extant proceedings before that court. But the more general practice is for the Attorney General to be invited to initiate proceedings to safeguard the public course of justice. The enforcement of orders made in private proceedings is generally a matter for the parties."
TR was found to be in contempt (for which the maximum sentence is 2 years) at Leeds, having posted a long video filmed outside court when the judge had directed that comment on the case shoudl be postponed. His sentence included a suspended 3 months sentence for an earlier contempt (Canterbury). Contempt of court is not a criminal conviction. It is dealt with in open court.
Contempt can be dealt with by the court "or its own motion" as summary procedure, or referred to the Attorney General to consider a formal prosecution. To Dealing with the matter summarily, the judge has to be satisfied so he or she is sure - the same as the criminal standard of proof. The judge at Leeds was satisfied of the contempt on the basis of what TR had accepted. The judge at Canterbury had the video there and then.
The Court of Appeal was satisfied with the Leeds decision. But, TR having taken down the video so the matter was no longer urgent, felt that the case should have been referred to the AG for further consideration. And the Court was conserned that the judge had not identified which bits of the video were in contempt and why, so the proceedings were not fair.
Para "For the reasons we have given, we are satisfied that the decision at Leeds Crown Court to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for Part 48 of the Rules gave rise to unfairness. There was no clarity about what parts of the video were relied upon as amounting to contempt, what parts the appellant accepted through his counsel amounted to contempt and for what conduct he was sentenced. Indeed, we would emphasise that, save for those cases involving obstructive, disruptive, insulting or intimidating conduct in the courtroom or its vicinity or otherwise immediately affecting the proceedings, the judge, having taken such steps as are necessary to bring the misconduct to an end and mitigate its consequences, should usually resist the temptation to initiate contempt proceedings on his or her own motion. In the circumstances of this case, whilst the judge was entitled to deal with the contempt himself, the urgency went out of the matter when the appellant agreed to take down the video from Facebook. There should have been an adjournment to enable the particulars of contempt to be properly formulated and for a hearing at a more measured pace, as had happened in Canterbury. The judge might have referred the matter to the Attorney General to consider whether to institute proceedings. That course would have avoided the risk of sacrificing fairness on the altar of celerity."
TR is not off the hook. If the AG decides that offences can be made out, and that it is in the piblic interests, he will face trial for contempt in relation to the Leeds video. He will get a fair trial if he choses to plead not guilty (and legal aid) however despicable he may be.
