Sheriff Appeal Court refuses appeal against contempt of court finding for man who photographed witnesses

About this case:

• Citation:
  2025 SAC (Civ) 44
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal N A Ross

Appellant Garry Pettigrew, the respondent in a minute by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, argued that he had not committed a crime and had a well-founded grievance about how his case had been treated by the Secretary of State. While it was noted that, unlike in England Wales, there was no statutory prohibition on taking photographs in court, the respondent submitted the sheriff’s view of the impact on witnesses and on the overall procedure was sound.

The appeal was heard by Sheriff Principal Nigel Ross and Appeal Sheriffs Derek O’Carroll and Joan Kerr. Munro, solicitor, appeared for the appellant and Maciver, advocate, for the respondent.

Unrealistic in modern society

On 29 April 2024 the appellant attended Hamilton Sheriff Court in connection with an evidential hearing. When he entered the room for pursuers’ witnesses, he recognised two of the people in room, Daly and MacKintosh, from previous dealings with them. The appellant took pictures of the two with his mobile phone. Later that day, these photographs appeared on social media accompanied by adverse and insulting comments directed against them. The replies to these posts were in turn reposted by the appellant and tagged with Daly’s own handle.

The respondent lodged a separate minute for contempt of court based on the taking and dissemination of the photographs, claiming that the conduct was designed to intimate and discourage witnesses and challenge the authority of the court. The appellant lodged defences claiming he did not take or publish the photographs or know that taking photographs was forbidden.

Following proof, the sheriff found that the appellant had both taken and disseminated the photographs and that a notice in the court building informed users that the taking of photographs was prohibited. Further, his actions had the potential to prejudice the proper administration of justice and amounted to contempt of court. On appeal, the appellant submitted that the court could not rely on a protocol about photography that was only published on the Scottish Courts website and that banning mobile phones was unrealistic in modern society.

The appellant further submitted that Daly and MacKintosh had not been on the witness list for the hearing, and he believed they were attending to listen to proceedings. In relation to reposting, he was not a journalist, so the Reporter’s Guide limitations did not apply to him. For the respondent it was submitted that the important consideration for the court was the result, not the intention. The argument relating to online notice was irrelevant, as there was a finding that there was an express notice within the building prohibiting photography.

Intention not relevant

Delivering the opinion of the court, Sheriff Principal Ross said of the relevant conduct: “In isolation, in the absence of any sinister context, a single act of photography might amount only to a minor contempt. If such an act were not accompanied by dissemination of the photographs, that might (depending on circumstances) amount only to an indirect challenge to the authority of the court, without material effect on the court proceedings. However, in this case, the subsequent actions of the appellant in disseminating the photographs, then reposting them with added insulting comments, replies and tags, represented a much more serious threat to the integrity of the court process.”

He added: “Those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and must be shielded on the way to discharging their duties. Anything which interferes, or may foreseeably interfere, with the giving of full and uninfluenced evidence by members of the public, is an interference with the delivery of justice and amounts to a challenge to the authority of the court. Mr Pettigrew’s actions were objectively likely to deter witnesses and others from attending, to distract and dismay, and ultimately to detract from the quality of evidence available to the court.”

Considering the argument that the appellant did not know the photographed persons were witnesses, the Sheriff Principal said: “Leaving aside the gap in credibility arising from their presence in the pursuer’s witness room, that point was not relevant. The contempt arose from photographing court users inside the court building, irrespective of why they were there, together with the dissemination of the photographs and reporting with abusive and insulting comments. Mr Pettigrew’s intentions, or knowledge, were not relevant factors.”

He concluded: “The right not to be photographed, publicly shamed or intimidated is clearly preferred to any possible right of Mr Pettigrew to shower insults and public condemnation upon court users. The present case involved creating material, not merely sharing it, and did not relate to defamation. Reposting in the present appeal was merely the last element of a course of conduct.”

The appeal was accordingly refused.