Ignorance of the law, no excuse

By Justice P.H.K. Kulatilaka

Nowadays very often newspapers report of cases where people had been convicted of the offence of Contempt of Court. For instance, a daily newspaper carried the following news item. ‘Litigant fined for contempt of court’. It was a case where the Magistrate had fined Rs. 500 on a litigant who was chewing a chewing gum while in the court house. Another news item said ‘Youth gets three month’s R.I for contempt’.

In this case a youngster had appeared before court with the top of his shirt unbuttoned ignoring the instructions given to him by the court sergeant. There had been instances where people seated inside court rooms using mobile phones were fined and warned for committing the offence of contempt of court.

The majority wouldn’t know what the law is all about In some of these instances the doer knew that he was committing an act which was contemptuous. But there had been instances where the doer was caught unawares because he did not know that he was committing a punishable offence.

Most probably he would have told court that he did not know he was committing an offence. The law says ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is a hallowed principle of law jealously followed by the judicial fraternity to keep the streams of justice clear and pure.

Albeit, the reality is that the majority of the laymen do not know what the law is all about. Sometimes they had unknowingly stepped into the forbidden areas. They come to know that they had flouted the law only when they are charged. Very often the legislature introduces new Acts creating new offences. Sufficient publicity should be given to the ordinary citizens. The citizens expect fair justice.

The object of this article is to give readers a general idea of the law relating to the offence of contempt of court.

The Constitution is the paramount law of the country. In terms of Article 116 every person who without legal authority interferes or attempts to interfere with the exercise or the performance of the judicial powers or functions of any judge shall be guilty of an offence punishable by the High Court on conviction after trial. He is visited with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding one year or fine or with both. In addition he may be disqualified for a period not exceeding seven years from being an elector and from voting at a referendum or an election.

Definition

It is undoubtedly one of the great contributions the common law has made to the civilised behaviour of a large part of the world beyond Europe where the institution was unknown.

The phrase ‘Contempt of Court’ has been explained to mean conduct that tends to bring the authority and the administration of the Law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses during litigation’. [Oswald on Contempt of Court].

The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it strike at the very foundation of the civilised society. It is a necessary incident to every court of law to fine and imprison a doer of an act or omission of a person which amounted to contempt of court. It is not only the dignity of court which is offended, but by his omission or commission the fundamental supremacy of the law is also challenged.

Provisions

Article 105 of the Constitution has enshrined provisions entrusting both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal power to punish for contempt of court with imprisonment or fine or with both. The power of the Court of Appeal includes the power to punish for contempt of any other court or tribunal.

There was a case in the recent past where the Supreme Court convicted and punished a politico for making an utterance in the course of a speech made during a ceremony which in the opinion of the Court amounted to scandalising court. In discussing the topic ‘Scandalising the Court’ in his book The Due Process of Law Lord Denning had this to say ‘When the judges of a court are criticised or defamed or as it is put ‘scandalsed’ they can punish the offender and they say, not to protect themselves as individuals but to protect the authority of the court’.

An aggression of people’s rights -Rule issued against a law enforcement officer C.A. 1223 / 98 decided in 2000 is a case in point. Here, a suburban Magistrate’s Court had recalled a warrant issued previously against a sitting High Court Judge [now retired] and enlarged him on bail. On the same day the respondent police officer disregarding the Magistrate’s order arrested the High Court Judge at his residence. It was alleged that the respondent knowing, or having reason to know or believe that the warrant previously issued had been recalled and that the aforesaid judge had been enlarged on bail did arrest him thereby acted in contempt of court punishable under Article 105 [3] of the Constitution.

The three judges of the Court of Appeal in their judgement inter alia, remarked ‘an aggression on the authority of a court of law of this country is an aggression against the citizens of this country. Being law enforcement officers they cannot act according to their whims and fancies. Their actions must perforce be directed by law. To act otherwise would be to act against the interest of the people of this country. The courts are the guardians of the rights of the people of the country and people look to the courts for the preservation of their rights’.

The Court of Appeal found that the alleged charge of contempt of court against the respondent had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to conviction. The Court of Appeal without imposing a sentence of imprisonment made order that a sum of Rs. 200,000 be paid as state costs.

Rights

It must be noted that Article 15[ a] provides for citizen’s entitlement the freedom of speech and expression but subject to such restrictions prescribed by law in the interest of contempt of court. i.e fair comment on matters of public interest. Lord Denning put it succinctly thus ‘those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication’.

To be continued