In contempt proceedings where committal to prison is sought, a [name withheld] v [name withheld] inference cannot be drawn against the person charged from their failure to call witnesses, because the accusatorial character of such proceedings is inconsistent with any expectation that the accused will adduce evidence. A charge of contempt must distinctly state the conduct alleged; a conviction cannot be based on uncharged conduct even where the accused was cross-examined on it without objection.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.