Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Court of Appeal of Tonga

Namoa v Attorney-General [2000] TOCA 14; CA 09 2000 (21 July 2000)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TONGA
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY

APPEAL NO.9/00
BETWEEN

'ESAU NAMOA

First Appellant

KILISITINA VAEA

Second Appellant

CHRISTOPHER RACINE

Third Appellant

OCEANIA BROADCASTING NETWORK LTD

Fourth Appellant
AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Coram:
Burchett J Tompkins J Beaumont J

Counsel:
Mr Edwards for the Appellants
Mr Kefu for the Respondent

Date of hearing: 12^th July 2000.
Date of judgment: 21^st July 2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from orders of the Supreme Court [Ward CJ] convicting each of the appellants of contempt of court. The contempt found by Ward CJ was the class of contempt known generally as criminal contempt, consisting of words or acts obstructing, or tending to obstruct or interfere with, the administration of justice [see Halsbury's Laws of England 4^th Ed. Vol. 9 at 3]. The particular kind of contempt is that known as scandalising the court. Halsbury [at 21] explains the relevant principles as follows:

"27. Scandalising the court. Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a court or a judge into contempt, or to lower his [or her] authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the court, is a contempt of court.

Thus scurrilous abuse of a judge or court, or attacks on the personal character of a judge, are punishable contempts. The punishment is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the court as a whole or the individual judges of the court from a repetition of the attack, but of protecting the public, and especially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, from the mischief they will incur if the authority of the tribunal is undermined or impaired. In consequence, the court has regarded with particular seriousness allegations of partiality or bias on the part of a judge or a court.

On the other hand, criticism of a judge's conduct or of the conduct of a court, even if strongly worded, is not a contempt provided that the criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith and is not directed to the personal character of a judge or to the impartiality of a judge or court."