Freelance Journalists and Contempt of the Court
![handle is hein.journals/sjls17 and id is 239 raw text is: 17 Mal. L.R.
FREELANCE JOURNALISTS AND CONTEMPT OF COURT
INTRODUCTION
The class of contempt of court which is generally referred to
by the archaic phrase of scandalising the court embodies any act
done or writing published which is calculated to bring a court or a
judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority.' Its aim
is the protection of the administration of justice and the preservation
of public confidence in the process.2 The English courts have exercised
this jurisdiction for more than 200 years. As was observed by
Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.: This is not a new-fangled jurisdiction:
it is a jurisdiction as old as the common law itself, of which it forms
part.4 In Singapore where the foundation of the legal system is
wholly common law, this offence was nudged from its state of dor-
mancy in the recent case of Attorney-General v. Pang Cheng Lian and
Others.5 The significance of this case resides in the Singapore High
Court's ruling in relation to the liability of part-time reporters whose
livelihood depends on the supplying of information to newspapers or
other publications.6 This article will therefore focus on the liability
of Pang Cheng Lian.7
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. PANG CHENG LIAN AND OTHERS
In this case, the magazine Newsweek had published in its November
11, 1974 issue an article entitled Singapore- Selective Justice. The
1 Per Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. in R. v. Gray [1900] 2 Q.B. 36 at p. 40.
2 Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court (Cmnd. 5794) at p. 68.
3 R. v. Evening Standard Co. Ltd. [1954] 1 Q.B. 578 at p. 584.
4 R. v. Gray [1900] 2 Q.B. 36 at p.40.
5 [1975] 1 M.L.J. 69.
6 It would be relevant to note that in the United Kingdom, the Report of the
Committee on Contempt of Court (Cmnd. 5794) has recently been published
(hereinafter to be referred to as the Phillimore Report). The Committee
did not fully canvass the liability of part-time reporters or stringers. In the
context of Attorney-General v. Pang Cheng Lian and Others, paragraph 146
of the Phillimore Report could be of some relevance. Paragraph 146 provides
as follows: There can be no doubt that the writer or broadcaster of material
held to be in contempt or the individual by whose act evidence is distorted
or who otherwise commits the contempt should himself be liable whatever his
status, i.e., whether he is on the permanent staff of a publishing or broadcasting
company, or any other concern, or is self-employed. If he was acting under
express orders, this will be a matter for mitigation, but not a defence.
7 The 1st respondent, Pang Cheng Lian, was the part-time reporter involved
in the case. The 2nd respondent was employed as the circulation manager for
Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, and was responsible for the sale of subscription
and newstand copies of the magazine. The 3rd respondent was employed as
the distributor of the magazine in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. In relation
to the 2nd and 3rd respondents the court invoked R. v. Griffiths, ex parte
Attorney-General ([1957] 2 Q.B. 192) and held that the defence of innocent
dissemination was not available to those who in the way of their trade were
responsible for putting the offending matter into circulation. Both were con-
victed and fined $1,000 and $500 respectively. For recommendations of the
Phillimore Commission on the liability of distributors in the United Kingdom,
see paragraph 154 of the Report.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/sjls17&div=17&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Freelance Journalists and Contempt of the Court
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most