Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Tonga Law Reports

Attorney General v Po'uhila [1999] TongaLawRp 18; [1999] Tonga LR 86 (8 June 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
Supreme Court, Nuku’alofa

Cr 1319/98

Attorney General

v

Po’uhila

Ward CJ
7 June 1999; 8 June 1999

Contempt of Court — publication of comments on credibility of witnesses during trial — editor and reporter fined

The facts of this case are set out at Attorney General v ‘Akau’ola [1999] Tonga LR 71. The case arose from the publication of an article commenting on the credibility of witnesses during the trial in which they were testifying. On 14 April, the deputy editor of the Taimi ‘o Tonga, Filokalafi ‘Akau’ola, was found guilty of contempt of court and fined $5,000.00. The editor of the paper, Kalafi Moala, and the reporter who wrote the articles, ‘Ulu’alo Po’uhila, were in New Zealand and service upon them of the summons and other documents in the case was ordered. They admitted the contempt and pointed out that the fine ordered against the deputy editor had been paid by the newspaper already. They also published, both in Tongan and English, a report of the finding of contempt against them together with an expression of their regret and apologies for the contempt. They suggested they had not realised that such a publication would amount to contempt of court. Both respondents sought leniency. They pointed out that the paper had already paid a considerable sum in damages from a civil claim for defamation. The financial position of the paper was extremely poor and it was already in the position of having to pay those damages by installments.

Held:

1. The contempt arose from the timing of the publication and its seriousness was the risk that it could prejudice the fair trial of a matter before the court.

2. Independent newspapers play an important role in a free society but press freedom carries with it responsibility and, when the paper failed to pay proper regard to that to the detriment of justice, the court must mark it by an appropriate penalty. The editor inevitably took the primary responsibility for any decision to publish.

3. The editor, Kalafi Moala, was ordered to pay a fine of $5,000 or five months imprisonment in default of payment.

4. Although the reporter was the author of the articles, the case related to the timing of publication rather than to the actual content and he may have had little part in that decision: ‘Ulu’alo Po’uhila was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 or one month imprisonment in default.

5. Both fines were to be paid within two months and the respondents were to pay plaintiff’s costs.

Counsel for plaintiff: Mrs Taumoepeau
Counsel for defendants: Mrs Taufaeteau

Judgment