Contempt Of Court: 'deeply insulted' judges denied lawyer a fair trial, European court rules

A London solicitor has advised a Cypriot lawyer, jailed for contempt of court by judges who claimed he had insulted them, on a successful appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).


The ECHR's ruling came in a case involving Michalakis Kyprianou, who in February 2001 was defending a murder suspect in the Court of Assize in Limassol when he fell into a dispute with the judges trying the case. He accused them of 'exchanging notes and talking to each other' - or 'ravasakia' - when he objected to being interrupted during his cross-examination of a witness.


The judges found this 'deeply insulting' and said they could not 'conceive of another occasion of such a manifest and unacceptable contempt of court by any person, let alone an advocate', and that 'if the court's reaction is not immediate and drastic, we feel that justice will have suffered a disastrous blow'.


They found him in contempt of court and sentenced him to five days' imprisonment. The Cyprus Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.


However, Mr Kyprianou - advised by Simons Muirhead & Burton partner Lewis Charalambous - argued that his right to a fair trial and freedom of expression had been compromised. The ECHR agreed, saying the fact that the judges had said they were 'deeply insulted as persons' meant they were insufficiently removed from the case.


The ECHR said if lawyers were not allowed to challenge judges it would have a 'chilling effect' on defence advocates everywhere.


Mr Charalambous said the result could give comfort to lawyers all over Europe. '[This decision] has entirely vindicated [Mr Kyprianou's] position in the case, which he brought not only on his behalf but for all members of the Cypriot Bar and for defence advocates everywhere within the contracting states in their ability to conduct cases on their clients' behalf.'


Mr Kyprianou, who was awarded 15,000 euro (£10,249) in non-pecuniary damages, said: 'The European court, at its highest level, has found unanimously in my favour both in respect of my fair trial rights and also, significantly, on freedom of expression grounds.'