A Melbourne man who filmed proceedings during a criminal hearing with a pen camera and then defied a judge in the courtroom has been convicted and fined $1500.

Ken Seferovich, 54, was seen by Judge Geoffrey Chettle in the County Court on November 20 last year seated in the public gallery and was asked what he had and "why is it glowing?"

That court heard on Monday Seferovich was found with a black and gold-trimmed pen which contained brief footage in the courtroom on a USB inside the device.

The footage also included his teeth and the sound of his breathing as he initially held the pen in his mouth.

Prosecutor Fiona Forsyth said Seferovich's conduct when approached by tip staff Bill Fury was obstructive and unco-operative and he had disrupted and disturbed the proceedings.

Ms Forsyth, for the principal registrar of the County Court, applied at a civil hearing to Judge Peter Wischusen to have him declared in contempt of court.

Ms Forsyth conceded it was not the most serious example of contempt, but the entirety of Seferovich's conduct, which included the covert recording, refusing to comply with the judge's directions and his false denials, tended to interfere with and undermine the administration of justice.

Judge Wischusen consented to hearing the application in Seferovich's absence after being satisfied he had avoided accepting service of documents, was aware of Monday's case listing and had acted in defiance of the court.

He heard that Seferovich initially refused to produce the device to police called to the court, but then agreed because "I don't want to cause a scene".

Seferovich later wrote to Judge Chettle, who had instigated a contempt process, to "thank you for your invitation to your palace, County Court", but declined his "offer" because "I am a man that is on land with both feet, body and soul".

The court heard that Seferovich, of Dandenong, claimed he had a right to use the device, despite a sign outside the court complex warning against such use, and had filmed as he believed there would be miscarriage of justice in court that day.

Judge Wischusen described the recording as unsophisticated and an "extremely amateurish undertaking" without a sinister motive.

He found, however, that the conduct did have a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and that general deterrence "must be given weight".