In re Parmanandam [1972] FJSC 4; No 90 of 1972 (9 June 1972)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

NO. 90 OF 1972

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR FIJI FOR AN ORDER OF COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT
AND IN THE MATTER OF ONE VIJAYA PARMANANDAM
DECISION

This is an application for Discharge under Order 52 Rule 8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Fiji based solely on an apology contained in paragraph 3 of an affidavit files by the applicant.

On a previous application the Court held that a form of apology then tendered did not constitute an unqualified, and unconditional apology and that it could not be treated as a sincere purging of the applicant’s contempt.

The form of apology now proffered is in the following terms:-

“THAT unless Her Majesty’s Fiji Court (of) Appeal or Her Majesty’s Privy Council sets aside this Honourable Court’s decision given on the 9^th day of May, 1972 herein, I hereby TENDER my BINDING, SINCERE UNQUALIFIED AND UNCONDITIONAL apology to this Honourable Court and to all the Honourable Judges of this Country in respect of the matters for which an Order for Committal was made against me as aforesaid.”

Although on this occasion the apology is tendered as a sincere, unqualified and unconditional one, the Court must again consider it in its context in order to determine its real meaning. I have come to the conclusion that the phraseology adopted by the applicant amounts to no more than this: that if Her Majesty’s Fiji Court of Appeal or Her Majesty’s Privy Council does not set aside the Order for Committal then, and only then, does the applicant give a binding, sincere, unqualified and unconditional apology. Thus on his own wording the applicant’s apology does not become operative until such time, if ever, as the Fiji Court of Appeal or the Privy Council declines to set aside the Order for Committal, and consequently the applicant and this Court must abide the event. By no stretch of the imagination can it constitute a currently effective and true apology.

On the hearing of the application Counsel for the applicant made mention of a form of apology filed in the case of R. v. Fletcher & Anor. Ex parte Kisch [1935] HCA 1; (1935) 52 C.L.R. 248, which was not readily available. I have since referred to same and find that it bears no resemblance to that before me, as the respondent therein acknowledged that some of the writings complained of were unwarranted, offensive, inaccurate and intemperate outbursts which could not be justified.

This Court was invited to say what form of wording would be acceptable but this is to mistake the shadow for the substance. It is not for the Court to dictate a formal apology, which, whatever be the words used, could have no other than a hollow ring. It is for the applicant to express in his own words his genuine feelings and these are known only to the applicant.

The application is refused.

(Clifford H. Grant)

JUDGE

SUVA
9^th June, 1972