Held in contempt
13/04/2004 The Star Articles of Law with
Bhag Singh
THE phrase “contempt of court” is often used even though it is not
completely understood. According to the New Little Oxford English
Dictionary, contempt in a general sense means the feeling that
someone or something is worthless. However contempt of court is
otherwise described as the offence of disobeying or being
disrespectful to the court.
There are three main ways of categorising contempt. One kind of
contempt is scandalising the court itself. Secondly, contempt is the
form of abusing parties who are involved in litigation. Thirdly
there could be contempt of the court in prejudicing the courts
before a matter is heard.
The Federal Constitution contains provisions regarding contempt of
court. Article 10 (2) allows Parliament to impose by law three
restrictions on the fundamental rights of a citizen to freedom of
speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms and the right
to form associations if such restrictions are to protect against
contempt of court.
Another provision is a general one, which provides that, “The
various Superior Courts will have power to punish any contempt
committed against them. By virtue of the provisions of the
Subordinate Courts Act, 1948, a Sessions Court and a Magistrate's
Court also has the power to take action. Contempt of court is also
punishable as an offence under the Penal Code.”
The Penal Code also deals with contempt of the lawful authority of
public servants. But otherwise absconding to avoid service of
summons notice or order, the prevention of service of such summons
or proceedings is contempt. Non-attendance or disobedience to an
order can also constitute contempt.
Another area of contempt of court pertains to conduct which occurs
during the proceedings in court itself. An example is when there was
a heated argument between the magistrate and the appellant who was a
counsel for a defendant. The magistrate dealt with the appellant
summarily for contempt of court for his insulting.
However, the High Court later set aside the conviction on the ground
that the circumstances did not warrant such a drastic step by the
magistrate. This was on the basis of the facts in that particular
case.
In another case where the crowd in the courtroom disregarded a
magistrate's appeal for calm by continuing to shout and by throwing
a missile in the direction of the bench, the magistrate summarily
ordered all those in court, including the accused persons, to be
committed to prison for contempt.
However, the High Court by its reversionary powers set aside the
committal order even though such behaviour did amount to contempt of
court because the correct procedure of identifying the persons
concerned as well as giving them an opportunity to be heard was not
followed.
Another kind of contempt of court concerns contempt committed
outside the court. In its widest sense, it means anything which
amounts to an improper interference with the due administration of
justice.
It is an important function of the law of contempt to ensure that
every trial is a fair trial, which means a trial conducted free from
any prejudice. Hence, publication or broadcast of any material which
prejudices a “fair” trial may amount to contempt of court.
A publication or broadcast need not actually prejudice a trial to
amount to contempt. It is sufficient that there is a real risk of
prejudice. At the same time the law does not require that there
should be no comment, report or reference whatsoever to a trial. The
media has a role to play, but the problem is to decide where the
line should be drawn.
There are occasions when events occur resulting in prosecution. At
the same time there is a need for the public to be informed. This
gives rise to conflict between public interest and prejudice.
Such a situation arose in Singapore many years ago when, following a
big demonstration in support of academic freedom by students, force
was used to disperse the crowd; 14 policemen, three civilians and
six students were injured.
The Minister of Interior and Defence issued a statement suggesting
that the students were using academic freedom as a cloak for
lawlessness and violence. The statement was broadcast over the radio
and television, and proceedings for contempt were instituted by the
students against the minister.
The court took into account the extraordinary circumstances
prevailing in Singapore when certain Members of Parliament had
resigned so that they could “take the battle to the streets”. Street
demonstrations involving the destruction of public property and
clashes with the police had taken place in many parts of Singapore.
There was an organised movement to defy law and order and to create
chaos of which the court took notice.
The court, while deciding that the statement was not calculated to
prejudice a fair trial, went on to say that even if they were it was
not such a contempt as would justify interference by the court in
the manner asked for.
The alternative reasoning appears to be a preferable basis for the
decision. It would therefore appear that whilst ministers enjoy no
greater privilege compared to individuals, they may receive
favourable treatment when such statements are made in the
advancement of public interest. |
|
|
|
