Low Hop Bing J

Background

On 18 April 1996, this court found the respondent guilty of contempt in aiding and abetting one Chan Ah Kaw in presenting the transfer of the subject property. The matter now before me is in relation to the sentence to be meted out in respect of the said contempt.

Mitigating factors

Apology

The respondent through his affidavit tendered an unqualified apology to this court and pleaded for leniency. This is one of the mitigating factors which the court may take into consideration in imposing a proper sentence. This is the approach adopted by the then Supreme Court in A-G v Arthur Lee Meng Kuang [1987] 1 MLJ 206 , where it was observed as follows at p 210:

... We wished that the advocate had tendered his apology before the hearing of this application and that he would plead for leniency after he is found guilty, to enable us to consider them as additional mitigating factors.

In India, the same judicial approach was adopted in which an apology was also given due consideration (see Ramnikal v Pramlal AIR 1952 Kutch 74 and MY Shareef v Hon Judges of the Nagpur High Court AIR 1955 SC 19).

Other extenuating circumstances

In arriving at a proper sentence, I also ta