Contempt of court is a crime provided for by Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The norm protects the dignity of participants in the administration of justice and the authority of the court: the insult of a participant in proceedings is punishable, and under the second part — the insult of a judge, a juror or a member of the Constitutional Court. If this charge concerns you, it is important to know the exact elements of the article and its sanctions.
This page provides a complete normative analysis of Article 366 — the exact wording of both parts and their sanctions, and the questions on which the defense works in cases of this category. Every figure is taken solely from the text of this article.
Article 366: what contempt means
The first part treats as a crime contempt of court expressed in the insult of a participant in proceedings. The second part examines the same act expressed in the insult of a member of the Constitutional Court, a judge or a juror. The qualification thus depends on whom the insult was directed against: any participant in proceedings — Part 1; a judge, juror or member of the Constitutional Court — Part 2. The difference is not merely terminological: Part 2 specially protects those persons who decide the case. Accordingly, the prosecution must establish precisely against whom the statement was directed — which often requires an analysis of verbal formulations rather than the general situation.
Sanctions, part by part
The article is divided into two parts:
- Part 1 — contempt of court expressed in the insult of a participant in proceedings: a fine, or community service for a term from one hundred eighty to two hundred forty hours, or imprisonment for a term of up to one year;
- Part 2 — the same act expressed in the insult of a member of the Constitutional Court, a judge or a juror: a fine, or corrective labor for a term from one to two years, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years.
The community-service alternative in Part 1 is framed in hours — from one hundred eighty to two hundred forty. This means the law treats this act as a light category, though even the first part provides imprisonment for up to one year. Part 2 is stricter — corrective labor from one to two years and imprisonment for up to two years. The choice among the alternatives depends on the circumstances of the case.
What the defense examines on this charge
The central question in cases of this category is the assessment of expression: not every harsh or rude statement toward proceedings automatically constitutes an insult in the sense of this article — the prosecution must show that the concrete statement is precisely an insult and was directed at the person named in the article. The defense accordingly analyzes: what was said and in what context; against whom the statement was directed and whether that person belonged to the circle of participants in proceedings; and which part’s features exist. The boundary between an insult and an expression of a different character passes precisely through this assessment.
The second important question is the evidence: court sessions are recorded in protocols and often in audio or video material, and precisely this material shows what was said, in which context and how it was perceived. The defense’s task is to analyze this record in full — partial citation often distorts the picture. The defense also compares the protocol record with the audio or video recording where it exists: a written protocol is a secondary fixation made by a person, and divergences between the record and the actual course of the session are not rare. Where such a divergence is found, the question arises which of the two reflects the event — and the resolution of that question frequently decides the case no less than the qualification itself. The rule of how proceedings are conducted and who is considered a participant is not explained in detail by the text of this article itself — these questions are established by procedural legislation, and their precise application in a concrete case is part of the lawyer’s analysis.
Why a lawyer is needed
A peculiarity of this charge is that it arises in the courtroom, in an emotional setting — while its assessment must be strictly legal: which statement, against whom, and under which part’s features. Remember the boundary between the two parts: one and the same verbal formulation directed at different participants constructs different parts — and correspondingly triggers different sanctions. This is why the verification of qualification is a matter for the first consultation, and not for the time of the court hearing. An early assessment also determines in which form the person builds a position and on which material it rests — and this, in the end, directly affects the outcome of the case, sometimes determining it entirely. Contact Legal.ge — the consultation is confidential.