Kumar, In re [1991] FijiLawRp 10; [1991] 37 FLR 90 (11 August 1991)

[1991] 37 FLR 90

HIGH COURT OF FIJI

Re: VIJENDRA KUMAR AND NEMANI DELAIBATIKI

[HIGH COURT, 1991, (Jesuratnam J), 11 August]

Criminal Jurisdiction

Courts - contempt of Court - whether a publication in the media is in the face of the Court - whether proof of intent an ingredient of the offence.

The two national newspapers both published a report of evidence adduced in a trial within a criminal trial. The High Court HELD: (1) that such publication was a contempt in the face of the court (2) that the editors of the newspapers were responsible for the publications (3) that they had not taken reasonable care to prevent them and (4) that their lack of intent to commit contempt was no defence.

Cases cited:

Attorney-General v English & Another [1982] 2 WLR 959
Balogh v St. Albans Crown Court [1975] Q.B. 73
Gordon v Williams (FCA Reps 76/66)
R. v Border Television Ltd. 68 Cr. App R. 375
Regina v Odhams Press Ltd & Others ex parte Attorney-General [1957]1 Q.B. 73
Rex v Dolan (1907) 2 IR, 960
St. James Evening Post (1742) 2 ALK 469

Proceedings for contempt of the High Court.

B. N. Sweetman and J. G. Singh for the First Respondent
K. Bulewa and J. Semisi for the Second Respondent
L Mataitoga and Ms. N. Shameem for Director of Public Prosecutions as amicus curiae

Jesuratnam J:

In this case the Editor, Fiji Times Vijendra Kumar, and the Editor, Daily Post Nemani Delaibatiki, were called upon to show cause as to why committal proceedings should not be taken against them for having published on the 23rd July 1991 proceedings of a trial-within-a-trial relating to the admissibility of an alleged confession of the accused held in the absence of assessors and which publications were calculated to prejudice the course of justice.

When the trial was resumed on the 23rd July 1991 Mr. Afzal Khan, who appeared for the defence, and Mr. Ravi Perera, who appeared for the prosecution, brought to my notice the said publication in both newspapers that morning and Mr: Khan complained that his client had been gravely prejudiced and moved for the discharge of the assessors and anew trial. I readily acceded to his request as it was a proper one and discharged the assessors and ordered a fresh trial to be held about a month and a half later so as to minimise the risk of getting a fresh set of assessors from whose memories the publication in question may not have been fully erased. I also directed the Chief Registrar to issue notices on the two editors to show cause as to why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court.