Contempt with a capital C.
There is probably unlikely to be a civil case this year that will attract more media coverage and public interest than the Paul McCartney Heather Mills divorce. Pop star from the most famous of all bands, short marriage, large amount of money, parties apparently at daggers drawn, the interest is unsurprising. This is especially so when one of the parties ended up representing herself against her husband's formidable legal team. As the saying goes, you couldn't make it up. Even down to the drama about whether the judgment would be made public or not, with Heather Mills saying that she wanted to keep it private for the sake of her daughter, but it finally being released nonetheless and proving to be highly unflattering to the wife.
As if this was not already a story which had everything, there was an additional twist. It transpired that the slicked back hair sported as she left court by Paul McCartney's solicitor, Fiona Shackleton, was not a fashion statement but the consequence of having water poured over her head in court. Heather Mills, client for the other side, being the alleged perpetrator. The stories seem by common consent to concur that she did indeed pour the water over Fiona Shackleton's head at the conclusion of the case, possibly as the Judge was leaving court or just after he had done so. Consequently the whole world knows about it. It is even now featured in a computer game, "Splash and grab" at muccachucka.co.uk .
What is surprising and disturbing is that nothing has been done to Heather Mills in consequence. However trifling, this was an assault on a solicitor in court. It was, if it occurred as suggested, yobbish behaviour which would get you thrown out of a bar or restaurant. In a court room it is much more serious. Whilst the present state of Her Majesty's prisons may make a custodial sentence difficult (Judges are no doubt conscious of the headline of the "disappointed wife sent to prison whilst convicted murderers and terrorists are set free on early release" type) some punishment ought to have been inflicted. Being held in cells for a day and a substantial fine would in my view would have been appropriate.
This is not because I have any particular desire to see Heather Mills punished. I have never met her and so do not know whether the vilification she receives in the press is wide of the mark or not, but I would imagine that constantly seeing yourself depicted as a harridan is unpleasant. (For example, Paul McCartney accepted that she was a good mother, but this occupied barely a couple of lines of the acres of newsprint about her). Nor does Fiona Shackleton seemed to have suffered particularly. By common consent she looked rather good with slicked back hair. The problem is the impression it gives. If the court does nothing in such circumstances, it is effectively condoning abusive conduct towards lawyers in court, which is an attack at the heart of the judicial system. Just because Heather Mills was married to a pop star, and may have been disappointed with only receiving £24 million, does not give her a carte blanche to act as she likes. Virtually anyone who knows about the case knows what she did and the fact that she did it with impunity. Just as schoolboy footballers follow the example of the loutish overpaid premiership, so other litigants may follow the Heather Mills example. If contempt steps are taken against them, they may get the impression that justice is different for the rich than for the poor. That means that the justice system suffers doubly.
The dignity and integrity of the court and those who operate within it must be maintained. I feel a failure to give Heather Mills a short sharp shock in consequence of her conduct, may spawn a number of imitators with unfortunate effects.