AC here you go, straight from the court papers

seems you are wrong about it being “technicality”
.
The appellant’s complaints were
that: (i) the judge should not have proceeded as quickly as he did, initiating and completing proceedings that day
[60]
; (ii) no particulars of contempt were put to the appellant
[64]
; and (iii) insufficient mitigation was put forward as a result of the haste
[68]
. The court agrees that the judge should not have commenced the hearing of contempt proceedings that day. Once the appellant had removed the video from Facebook, there was no longer sufficient urgency to justify immediate proceedings
[62]
. In those circumstances it would have been preferable to adjourn, as had happened in the Canterbury proceedings. No particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the appellant. There was a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered. In both the short explanation given by the judge of the general nature of the alleged contempt and the sentencing remarks, there was reference to matters that could not been a breach of the section 4(2) order.
[64]
. The failure to follow Part 48 Crim PR was more than technical
[66]
. There was no clarity about what the appellant was admitting or on what basis he was being sentenced. Finally, further difficulties arose from the limited opportunity that counsel had to investigate mitigation
[68]
. There was little else which counsel could have done within the constraints under which he was working. The level of detail which could be provided to the court was very limited and there was no opportunity to obtain character references
[69]
. A sense of proportion must be retained. Where a custodial term of considerable length is being imposed, it should not usually occur so quickly after the conduct which is complained of
[69]
; a sentence of committal to immediate custody had been pronounced within five hours of the conduct taking place
[8]

Posted By: kinder egg, Aug 1, 21:14:03