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. |
