Lewis v His Honour Judge Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 682*

Robust action in front of a judicial officer is warranted and sometimes necessary.

At times allegation of bias and application for disqualification of a judicial officer is also required.

Contempt used only to protect integrity of court and proceedings not to protect the sensitivities of the judge.

The High Court considered whether a barrister should have been found guilty of contempt of the court for his address to the jury, in which he sought to redress an imbalance which – he perceived – had arisen from various comments made by the judge. The relevant legislation provided that a finding of contempt required the barrister to have wilfully insulted the judge, and the High Court concluded this to mean “‘intentionally’ or ‘deliberately’ in the sense that what is said or done is intended as an insult; it does more than negative the notion of "inadvertently" or "unconsciously", and imports the notion of purpose.

Discourtesy is disciplinary – Contempt is criminal

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Costello

The barrister was found guilty of professional misconduct for ‘calculated insult and insolence’ directed to wards the magistrate, and to another magistrate and three barristers on other occasions, which the NSW Court of Appeal described as a “style of advocacy designed to intimidate rather than persuade.”

Garrard v Emait Furniture Pty Ltd

Rudeness and discourtesy in court can amount to contempt of court. "Discourtesy is not limited to the tone of correspondence or the vigour of its language. Those members of the legal profession who seek to win a momentary advantage for their clients without observing the usual and proper courtesies invite correction by the court and the disapprobation of their colleagues

(e) Not to frustrate court process

Ex parte Bellanto: re Prior [1963] SR (NSW) 190*

The diatribe of the barrister appears to have been exercised in order for the jury to be discharged was held to be contempt and designed to frustrate the court process.  A deliberate manoeuvre of this kind, calculated to interfere with the due course of the trial, would amount to a contempt, even if it involves no insult to the judge.

Mechanical and General Inventions Co v Austin [1935] AC 346 at 359*

The barrister was held to have frustrated the court process by indefensibly conducting cross-examination of two witnesses, wherein the cross-examination was more than three times the duration of the original examination

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Costello [1984] 3 NSWLR 201

Could be frustrating the court process by continued insults.

Interference with the proper administration of justice’ denotes the doing of something which, if successful, would bring about consequences in the working of the system of justice by improper means; whether conduct in court goes so far beyond a tolerable degree of heat and conflict as to constitute such interference will be a question of fact in each case.”  the barrister was found guilty of intimidating the court, rather than persuading it, in order to procure a finding in favour of his client

Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (op. cit.) (McTierran J)

Suborning witnesses frustrates the court process.  Where the High Court stated that counsel may not interfere with the evidence of a witness

(f) To efficiently administer justice

Not to chase every rabbit down every hole Giarnelli.

Bar Rules, rr 41-42A

41. All nessasary work done must be done in a reasonable time and notice given if can not comply

42. Must confine work to the genuine issues, heard as soon as practicable, succinctly, with limited cross in shortest possible time.

(g) Responsible exercise of court process

As well, in Clyne, it was also affirmed that the protections which counsel enjoys must not provide a shield from which to abuse, attack or knowingly do harm by the introduction of irrelevant matters into court proceedings.

Bar Rules, rr 35-40

35. Allegations to be based on material in possession

36. A barrister must not allege any matter of fact unless a proper basis

37. Must not allege criminal actions unless material in support.  If the client wishes the allegation to be made, after having been advised of the seriousness of the allegation and of the possible consequences for the client and the case if it is not made out.

38. A barrister must not make a suggestion in cross-examination on credit unless the barrister believes on reasonable grounds that acceptance of the suggestion would diminish the witness’s credibility.