Cases concerning allegations of Contempt of Court never seem to be far from the legal news at the moment. High profile examples have included:

The leak of the United States Supreme Court’s draft opinion, purportedly confirming that the Court is preparing to rule in favour of the State of Mississippi that the State is permitted to stop the vast majority of abortions at and after 15 weeks gestation, is making shockwaves all over the world. This is primarily due to the emotive subject that the opinion deals with, but also the serious breach of confidentiality in the release of a draft Supreme Court decision before it is made public. 

Costs Orders in Contempt Proceedings seem like they should be simple on the surface. However, scratch a little deeper and there are a number of anomalies and ambiguities that need to be resolved.

The Russian destruction and dismemberment of Ukraine’s sovereign territory and population has been rightly met with public outcry and the call for stern and wide-ranging action against the Putin regime. The predicted government response has been to ratchet up Russian sanctions and since the invasion on 24th February there have been six separate treasury notices designating a wide-range of individuals and corporations associated with the Putin regime - culminating yesterday in Roman Abramaovich and Oleg Deripaska joining other oligarch luminaries such as Alisher Usmanov. The notices also encompass wide-ranging measures against Russian industries in shipping, aviation and banking sectors.No doubt more sanctions are to come and perhaps in anticipation of this and the need to enforce them, the government has sped through the Economic Crime Bill that had been first introduced in 2018 in light of criticisms over the effectiveness of the measures imposed in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAML). Currently the bill is on its 3rd reading in the Lords and Royal Assent is imminent.The bill focuses on 3 main areas: registration of the true beneficial ownership of property, measures to bolster and supplement Unexplained Wealth Orders in light of previous government setbacks on failed applications and a streamlining of the sanctions regime currently in place.With regard to the UWO’s the key takeaways are:- For property that has been held via offshore or trust structures, once the Bill is enacted, UWOs can be issued to any of a corporate respondent’s ‘responsible officers’, including its directors, board members, managers and trustees.- The Bill proposes limiting the costs that enforcement authorities are required to pay as a result of a failed UWO application. As with Asset Freezing Orders under the POCA regime in order for a successful respondent to obtain a costs order against the applicant authorities they must demonstrate unreasonable, dishonest or improper behaviour.- The authorities are given much longer to investigate material received in response to an unexplained wealth order before discharging the interim freezing order over the assets in question (from 60 to 186 days).

The Court of Rome today confirmed that the Italian detention warrant issued against our client Gianluigi Torzi has been withdrawn. As a result, steps should be taken immediately for the withdrawal of the extradition warrant and discontinuance of extradition proceedings against our client in the UK.