Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Solicitor General v Millinder was already in train. Of course it did not do that; it did, however, preclude him from seeking to re-open the appeal after it was dismissed. 23. On 29 April 2022, Mr Justice Kerr made an order for directions which, among other matters, directed that the section 42 Order was deemed to have been served on 6 July 2021; gave permission to serve the application for committal and his order by email to four specific addresses established to have been used by Mr Millinder; and gave directions for the service of evidence by way of denial and/or mitigation if Mr Millinder wished to do so. His order made it clear to Mr Millinder that he had the right to remain silent and put the Solicitor General to proof of each of the alleged acts of contempt; it also drew his attention to his right to legal representation at public expense. 24. The committal application was supported by an affidavit from Daniel Whitgrave, a legal adviser to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General asked the Divisional Court to dispense with Mr Whitgrave’s attendance at the hearing, since he could give no direct evidence of the alleged acts of contempt. The function of his affidavit was to exhibit the documents relied upon in support of the application and draw the Court’s attention to certain features of them which were relied upon as evidence of Mr Millinder’s authorship of the communications complained of. This application was not opposed by Mr Millinder, and the Court agreed that Mr Whitgrave’s evidence could be read. The hearing of the committal application 25. Paragraph 10 of Mr Justice Kerr’s order directed that the hearing of the application was to be conducted “in person” as distinct from a remote hearing via video or other link, subject to further order of the Court. He gave liberty to apply to vary that direction by way of a written application to be filed and served no later than 35 days after the date of service. 26. Having been warned by the Solicitor General on 6 September 2022 that if he was not present in court for the hearing, the Solicitor General would ask for the matter to proceed in his absence, Mr Millinder made such an application informally, on the basis that he is living abroad, and has been for some years. He sought to rely on the fact that the section 42 application was dealt with by way of a “hybrid” hearing with the judges and counsel for the Attorney-General present physically in court, and Mr Millinder attending virtually by CVP. Whilst that is true, those proceedings were of a very different nature. The liberty of the subject was not then at stake. It would be exceptional for an individual facing an application for committal for contempt of court to be excused attendance in person at the hearing of the committal proceedings. All the acts of alleged contempt were committed within the jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales, and the person who is said to be responsible for them cannot use his choice to live abroad as an excuse for refusing to come to court. 27. Mr Justice Kerr’s order was made and the hearing date was fixed in ample time for Mr Millinder to have made the necessary arrangements to attend court in person, and there was no evidence that he was unable to do so. He appears to be physically healthy, and he did not seek to suggest otherwise. Nor was there any evidence that he could not afford the fare; indeed, he claims to be carrying on business in the Far East. The mere fact that a respondent to a committal application would have to travel a long 7