(delivering the Judgment of the Court): This is an application under Order 52 Rules of the High Court 1980 read with Rule 4 RSC 1980, for an order that Mr. Arthur Lee Meng Kuang (hereinafter referred to as "the advocate") be committed to prison for contempt of court. After the advocate's motion to set aside the leave to commence the present proceeding was dismissed on March 20, 1986 (see SCCA No. 5 of 1986) we allowed the Attorney-General's application to be added as an applicant.

The undisputed facts of this case show that the second, third and fourth applicants (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") were defendants in Originating Summons No. 182 of 1983 filed by Thai Sang and Leong Kum Weng in the High Court at Johor Bahru. As purchasers of a particular portion of Merlin Towers in Johor Bahru, Lai and Leong (to be referred as "the respondents") prayed for declaratory orders and other reliefs against the appellants. The summons was heard by Abdul Razak J. who allowed the respondent's prayers on February 25, 1984. The appellants appealed against the decision, and on March 11, 1985 the appeal was heard together with another related appeal by the Supreme Court comprising Abdul Hamid C.J. (Malaya), Wan Suleiman and Seah S.C.JJ. (FCCA No. 79 of 1984). Written judgment was delivered on May 18, 1985 whereby the appeal was unanimously allowed (see [1985] 2 MLJ 380). The advocate (Mr. Arthur Lee) represented the respondents at the hearing in the High Court and also during the appeal, and needless to say, he was extremely unhappy and disappointed with the outcome. In the past, the advocate could advise his clients to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against a decision of the Federal Court. But, as a result of amendments by Act A566 and Act A600 to the Federal Constitution and to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, right of appeal to the Privy Council has ceased to exist with effect from January 1, 1985, and by the same amendments, the former Federal Court is replaced by the present Supreme Court which becomes a final court of appeal. Apparently, it is because of the inability of the advocate to accept the present legal position of no further appeal or review from the decision of the Supreme Court that he embarked on the extraordinary mission of writing various letters to the court and to the solicitors of the appellants and copied to others, criticising the court's judgment in allowing the appeal. The object of the exercise is unmistakably to persuade and influence the panel that allowed the appeal to review the case by reversing its own decision delivered on May 18, 1985. Four of these letters are the subject matter of the present contempt proceedings, viz. one addressed to the three appellate judges; one to M/s Sri Ram, Zulkifly and Kumar, solicitors of the appellants, and two letters addressed personally to Mr. Sri Ram and Mr. S. Balarajah. According to paragraph 4 of the statutory statement filed pursuant to Order 52 Rule 2(2) RHC the grounds on which committal is sought, is the conduct of the advocate in writing one or more of the four letters. By paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit dated June 14, 1985, Mr. C. Vijayakumar affirmed that "the remarks contained in these letters whether taken individually or in a combination of two or more, as a whole, are highly derisive of this honourable court and therefore in the circumstances constitute a serious contempt."

At the close of case for the Attorney-General and the appellants, we have overruled Mr. Humfrey Ball's submission of no case to answer. On the material before us and on consideration of the submissions made by counsel, there is no dispute that the four letters referred to in the appellants' statement are written and sent by the advocate to the three Supreme Court Judges involved in the appeal and to the solicitors of the appellants. We have read the letters and we find at least two of them are as a whole highly derisive of the Su