Contempt by Scandalising the Court
| Author | J.A. Coutts |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300541 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
Contempt
by
Scandalising the Court
Ahnee v DPP [1999] 2 WLR 1305
Although the appeal to
the
Privy Council in this case was largely
concerned with the interpretation of the constitution of Mauritius, the
Board's opinion contains important pronouncements on the offence of
contempt of court and, in particular,
upon
the
nature
of contempt by
way of scandalising the
court-in
this case, in circumstances which were
unusual. A local politician made a speech in which he made serious
allegations against the impartiality of the courts. This led
the
Chief
Justice to bring an action in defamation against the politician, which was
then
made the subject of a report.and
comment
in a local newspaper,
which alleged that the Chief Justice
had
fixed a hearing in his
own
interests, had, selected two judges
who
would be likely to be favourable
to
him
and
that
those judges would be hearing
the
merits of the case,
even
though they were likely to be called to give evidence in it. The
allegations were factually erroneous, in
that
the
senior puisne judge
had
arranged
the
trial
and
appointed the judges,
who
would
not
be giving
evidence. The Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP)
applied to the
Supreme Court, alleging contempt of court by scandalising
the
court,
and
asking for an order committing to prison the reporter
who
provided
the 'information', the journalist
who
wrote the article without checking
that information, the editor,
and
the
owner
and
publisher of the news-
paper. The defendants argued that the constitution of Mauritius
had
deprived the court of the power to punish such contempt, but the court
held that it
had
jurisdiction and it found the contempt proved, in that
the article
had
imputed improper motives to a member of
the
court,
that
it
had
done so without any reasonable
inquiry
into the
truth
of the facts
alleged
and
'that the article
had
been written in bad faith with intent to
mislead. The defendants appealed to the Privy Council and, although,
on some aspects of the case, the appellants used arguments which had
not
been
advanced before the local court,
the
Board pronounced
on
all
aspects of
the
case,
whether
raised before it for
the
first time or
not-
thus allowing
the
appellant afreedom
not
normally permitted to
appellants.
The substantive issue in the appeal was raised by the appellants'
objection to
the
Supreme Court's decision as to
the
nature
of contempt
by scandalising the court. But, at
the
hearing,
the
contemnors argued
two constitutional issues: that the constitution had abolished the court's
power to deal with contempt or (in
the
alternative) that,
if
jhe
court had
been left with an inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that
power
was in practice inoperable because it conflicted with a
number
of
particular rights
and
freedoms conferred by the constitution
on
indi-
viduals ..The Board held against the appellants
on
both points, on the
ground that in a democracy founded on
the
principle of
the
separation
of powers,
the
legislature could
not
deprive the judiciary of its funda-
mental constitutional function to protect the administration of justice
from all attacks.
An
integral part of the performance of
that
function is
472
To continue reading
Request your trial