![[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Butcher J identified four factors in Olympic Council of Asia (see paragraph 26(b) above) that are relevant for the court to consider, in deciding whether it is in the public interest for contempt proceedings to be taken. Given my finding that Sanman has not shown a sufficiently strong prima facie case of contempt, I will deal with the points relatively quickly.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE PERMISSION APPLIED FOR
- EVIDENCE
- THE NEED FOR PERMISSION
- “It has been emphasised that the court should exercise great caution before giving permission to bring proceedings [and] should not do so unless there is a strong case both that the statement in quest
- APPLYING THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO THE GROUNDS
- Significance of and use to which the Statement was put/motive
- THE PUBLIC INTEREST
- Prosecutorial Motive
- Would contempt proceedings justify the court’s and other resources which would be devoted to them?/Proportionality
- Furthering the Overriding Objective
- Likely Penalty
- Is Sanman a Proper Person to bring the Contempt proceedings?
- The Need for Great Caution
- GROUNDS 3 AND 4
- Does Sanman have a Strong Prima Facie Case that the statement is false?
- Does Sanman have a Strong Prima Facie Case that Mr Ginda knew the Statement to be untrue?
- The significance of the false statement, use to which it was put and Mr Ginda’s motive
- Conclusions