FOLLOWERS

Friday 11 September 2009

SISTEM KEADILAN JENAYAH : KES MENGHINA MAHKAMAH



[1990] 1 MLJ 273
Trustees of Leong San Tong Khoo Kongsi (Penang) Registered & Ors v SM Idris & Anor and another application


facts:
The Supreme Court on 27 April 1987 heard an appeal and gave judgment in respect of Supreme Court Appeal No 117 of 1986, Trustees of Leong San Tong Khoo Kongsi (Penang) Registered & Ors v Poh Swee Siang [1987] 2 MLJ 611 (refd). Subsequently, the first and second respondents in the first application made press releases commenting on the judgment of the Supreme Court. Later, at a meeting organized by the Consumers Association, Penang and the Thean Teik Residents Association in Penang, the first, second and third respondents in the second application delivered speeches also criticizing the judgment. The applicants then sought an order to commit the respondent to prison for contempt of the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of O 52 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 read with s 13(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

Holdings:

Held finding the first and second respondents in the second application in contempt of cout:

(1) In this country, there is a need to protect the dignity and integrit of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Court which is recognized by art 126 of the Federal Constitution and also by s 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. A balance must be struck between the right of freedom of speech as provided for in art 10 of the Federal Constitution and the need to protect the dignity and integrity of the Supreme Court in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.

(2) It is established that whether a criticism of a judgment is within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith must depend on the facts of each particular case, and in determining the limit of reasonable courtesy, the court should not lose sight of local conditions.

(3) As the applicants had indicated that they did not intend to pursue the matter against the second respondent in the first application, he was discharged and cautioned to be careful in future not to sign any document in a language he did not understand.

(4) The language used by the first respondent in the first appliation might have been intemperate but it did not amount to contempt of court. He was also discharged.

(5) The speech of the third respondent in the second application coul be interpreted in two ways, one accoring to the applicants’ contention and the other according to the respondent’s version. Bearing in mind that contempt proceedings are serious and quasi-criminal in nature, the court was not satisfied that the applicants had proved the case against the third respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of the doubt should be exercised in his favour and he should be discharged.

(6) As for the first and second respondents in the second applicantion, having read and considered their speeches and having regard to those speeches as a whole, the court could not say that they have not exceeded the bounds of reasonable courtesy or they were made in good faith. As advocates and solicitors, they are both officers of the court and are expected to uphold the dignity of the court and the respect for th judges. But they have ridiculed the Supreme Court. They have gone outside the two limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith and the court finds both of them guilty of contempt of court. They were each fined $5,000 or in default three month’s imprisonment.

Bahasa Malaysia Summary:

Diputuskan:

Diputuskan, mendapati bahawa responden pertama dan kedua dalam permohonan kedua telah menghina mahkamah:

(1) Di dalam negara ini, adalah perlu untuk kemuliaan dan keutuhan Mahkamah Agung dan juga Mahkamah Tinggi dilindungi, seperti yang yang diiktiraf oleh Perkara 126 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan juga oleh s 13 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. Keseimbangan hendaklah dicapai antara hak kebebasan bercakap yang diberi di bawah Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan keperluan melindungi kemuliaan dan keutuhan Mahkamah Agung demi kepentingan memelihara kepercayaan orang ramai terhadap badan kehakiman.

(2) Telah ditegaskan bahawa samada sesuatu kritikan penghakiman itu termasuk di dalam lingkungan budibahasa yang menasabah dan suci hati bergantung kepada fakta tiap-tiap kes tertentu, dan bagi menentukan sempadan budibahasa yang menasabah, mahkamah hendaknya jangan lupakan keadaan tempatan.

(3) Oleh kerana pemohon-pemohon telah memberitahu bahawa mereka tidak berniat meneruskan perkara ini terhadap responden kedua di dalam permohonan pertama, ia akan dilepaskan dan diberi amaran berjaga-jaga tidak akan menandatangani apa-apa dokumen yang ditulis di dalam bahasa yang tidak difahaminya.

(4) Bahasa yang digunakan oleh responden pertama di dalam permohonan pertama mungkin boleh dikatakan melampau akan tetapi ia tidak boleh disifatkan sebagai penghinaan mahkamah. Oleh kerana itu ia juga dilepaskan.

(5) Ucapan responden ketiga didalam permohonan kedua boleh ditafsirkan dengan dua cara, mengikut pendapat pemohon-pemohon atau mengikut pendapat responden. Memandangkan prosiding penghinaan adalah berat dan seakan-akan kesalahan jenayah sifatnya, mahkamath tidak berpuashati bahawa pemohon-pemohon telah membuktikan tuduhan terhadap responden ketiga hingga tidak ada keraguan yang menasabah. Faedah keraguan hendaklah diberi kepadanya dan ia dilepaskan.

(6) Setelah membaca dan menimbang ucapan-ucapan yang diberi oleh responden pertama dan kedua di dalam permohonan kedua dan setelah mempertimbangkan keseluruhan ucapan-ucapan itu, mahkamah tidak dapat mengatakan bahawa ucapan-ucapan itu tidak melampaui lingkungan budibahasa yang mena-sabah atau ia dibuat dengn suci hati. Sebagai peguambela dan peguamcara mereka adalah pegawi mahkamah dan mereka dihar-apkan mempertahankan kemuliaan mahkamah dan kehormatan kepada hakim-hakimnya.

Sebaliknya mereka telah memper-olok-olokkan Mahkamah Agung. Mereka telah keluar dari dua lingkungan budibahasa yang menasabah dan suci hati dan mahkamah berpendapat mereka telah salah melakukan penghi-naan mahkamah. Mereka didenda $5,000 tiap-tiap seorang atau tiga bulan penjara jika mereka ingkar.]

Penghuni Gua : Semuga semua pembaca dan pelajar menafaat dari alasan penghakiman kes ini. Pada masa ini banyak kes berkaitan menghina mahkamah tetapi tiada tindakan diambil oleh pihak yang berkaitan.

2. Jadi fikirkan. Jika perlu seseorang wajib melakukan sesuatu/ repot polis bagi mengekang keadaan ini.

3. Makin ramai yang kurang ajar. Mungkin begitu asuhanya kot.

No comments:

Post a Comment

PETA PELAYAR