Veerasamy, R. V. Stewart Et Al.,

 

1941     Present: Soertsz J.

 

R. VEERASAMY v. STEWART et al.

 

IN THE MATTER OF A CONTEMPT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE
SUPREME COURT IN RESPECT OF NON-SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS IN M. C., 

GAMPOLA, No. 2,172

 

Contempt of Court-Publication of editorials and articles on pending case- Articles calculated to prejudice the fair trial of the petitioner-Intent not an essential ingredient of offence-Courts Ordinance, s. 47.

 

Where the editor and the publisher of a newspaper were charged with contempt of the authority of the Supreme Court in respect of certain editorials, letters and report of a speech, appearing in the newspaper and referring to non-summary proceedings in a Magistrate's Court in which the petitioner was charged with murder-which said publications were calculated to prejudice the fair hearing of the case before the Supreme Court,-

 

Held, that it was not essential to establish that the respondents intended to prejudice the fair trial of the petitioner or to interfere with the course of justice. It would be sufficient if the effect of the publications complained of was to create prejudice or to interfere with the due course of justice.

 

THIS was a rule issued against the respondents, the Editor and the Publisher of the Times of Ceylon, to show cause why they should not be dealt with under section 47 of the Courts Ordinance for Contempt of the Authority of the Supreme Court.

 

N. Nadarajah, for the respondents.-A rule for contempt would lie only in a case where comments have been made pending an investigation, directly affecting the accused person and connecting him with the commission of the offence. In the present case it cannot be said that the publications in question directly or by necessary inference prejudice the petitioner by implicating him personally. The leading cases on the subject are R. v. Parke1; R. v. Tibbits 2; R. v. Davies 3. What is merely " technically" contempt is not sufficient; the power which this Court possesses is one which ought to be exercised only in cases of real contempt (Reg. v. Payne and Cooper4; Gaskell and Chambers, Ltd. v. Hudson, Dodsworth & Co.5). See also Oswald on Contempt of Court (1910),

 

S. Nadesan (with him P. de Silva and H. Jayawardene), for the petitioner.-The comments made in the articles are of such a character as to create an atmosphere of prejudice against the accused and affect a fair trial. It is not necessary that the comments should make direct reference to the subject-matter of the case. A case exactly in point is Superintendent of Legal Affairs, Behar v. Murali Manohar 6. See also Higgins v. Richards 7 R. v. Editor, Printers and Publishers of the Daily Herald Ex Parte Rouse8;

 

Foot Notes: 
 

1 (7903) 2 K. B. 432.

2 (1902) 1 K. B. 77.

3(1906) 1 K.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document