Supreme Court
Action No. 6 of 1984
30th January, 1984.
Moe, J.

Mr. G. Gandhi, Director of Public Prosecutions for the Applicant
Mr. W. Elrington for the Respondent

Contempt of Court arising from two newspaper articles imputing grave bias on Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court - Allegations totally unfounded - Respondent unreservedly apologizing to the court and widely publishing apology in newspapers - Need for Courts to punish for contempt even where apology is given.

J U D G M E N T

This is a Motion by the Director of Public Prosecutions of Belize for an order that the respondent Cyril Davis be committed for contempt of this Court in publishing two articles containing statements and comments which are scandalous of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Belize and are calculated to obstruct public justice by bringing the authority of the Supreme Court and the administration of law in Belize into disrepute and disregard.

The articles complained of are as follows:

"HIGH WORDS OF PRAISE"

"High words of praises for a Judge, were published in one of the PUP newspapers. This is a very serious thing to have done, and an assinine thing to have also done to the reputation of a judge who is clean, when it is generally felt that cases brought by the Opposition in the Courts of Belize could never be won! In a court, if the politician have their way, no more trial by a jury!

That newspaper, which some people refer to as trash or rags, because it is owned by one of Belize's most unelected pudgy, crooked politicians, a rapacious, greedy and of a vile character, has now shown why UDP cases were always bound for failure!

And by so doing, has confirm the suspicion of the Nation and International Agencies that there might be something wrong in the Courts due to political appointments!

"The Labour Beacon hopes that in the interest of everlasting justice emminating from the courts that any judge whose name may have been so favourable praise in any such newspaper, will disassociate him or themselves from such a publication an action which, shall at least, let it appear that justice had appeared to be done, whatever that means; since communist judgment and democratic justice are diametrically different from democratic justice! And a kangaroo court and judge we can do without!"

"POUTING"

"Pouting or advertisement, or propagandization by a lawyer with or without his consent under English Jurisprudence is against the law consequently illegal!

A judge of the Supreme Court is also a Lawyer and consequently should not be involved in advertisement or pouting or propagandization for the service he had rendered in the Courts, under the English Jurisprudence!

He should also not allow he or his court to be the favourite of a political party (as a judge once refused to have the Supreme Court painted blue and white) especially when only political party can win cases in such a court!

"He, notwithstanding the fact that he is a human being like all of us, should at no time during his deliberation and the giving of his judgment should appear partial to the Defendant party and show his inclination to the Plaintiffs party!

When the fountain of justice so openly praised, according to any newspaper, which openly declares a judge their man of the year; it is reasonable to believe that our system of justice might becoming tainted and contaminated by greedy, communistic and corrupted government bandits. Its time for a judge change!

When the courts have become so favoured in the eyes of a ruling party in any country, then its time for that nation and its people to change the ruling corrupted and communistic vermins, along with the judge of the courts.

When a court allows itself to be the favourite of one group of people who are supporters of the party in power so that a newspaper displays the confidence they have of such a judge, then its high time that the people of that nation request the resignation of such judges, for one that is now nonpartistant, when a judge becomes the favourite of one political party, then is the time the opposition as well as those people who support the ruling party to start to worry, since the ruling party will win all its cases in such a one sided court!

It's a pity there is not a crane; or Henriquez, or Dickson, living in the Hall of Justice, somewhere in Heaven who will not so openly be praised for taking sides! Thanks to the assinity of the editor of such a newspaper for letting a nation know who is a judge."

The Learned Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that the articles impute lack of impartiality to the Supreme Court and its Judges. That such an imputation is a matter which is scandalous and therefore amounts to contempt of Court. Further that it is reasonable to assume that the Respondent intended the result a plain reading of the articles would have had.

The Respondent filed an affidavit in which he admits that he wrote the articles concerned and edited and published the issue of the "Labour Beacon" in which they appeared. He also says that it had never been his intention nor desire to impute in any way, partiality to the Supreme Court and its Judges, nor to be contemptuous to them, nor to scandalize the Judges of the Supreme Court nor to obstruct public justice. Through his counsel he has admitted that the articles concerned have the effect contended for by the Learned Director and amount to a contempt of the Supreme Court. The Respondent also offered to publicly apologise for his offence and the Court allowed him the opportunity to do so.

I am left to determine the appropriate penalty for the contempt. First of all I consider the nature of the contempt, I find that the article entitled "High Words of Praise" contains imputations: -

(a) That cases brought by a certain section of the community before the Courts can never be won and are always bound for failure. This is a blatant accusation of lack of impartiality.

(b) That there is a suspicion that something is wrong in the Courts because of political appointment. This is an imputation of political influence in the Courts.

I find that the article entitled "Pouting" contains the following imputations:

(a) That there is reason to believe our system of justice might be coming tainted and contaminated by greedy, communistic and corrupted government bandits. I regard this as a most reprehensible aspersion to cast at a Supreme Court whose justices are bound to uphold the Constitution of a democratic state.

(b) That the Court allows itself to be the favourite of one group of people.

(c) That the Court is a one-sided court. Both of these are repetitions of the charges of bias and partiality.

(d) That it is time to change the Judge of the Court.

When the articles are read as a whole and together the imputations are leveled at the Chief Justice and Supreme Court of Belize. No judgment, decision, ruling, order or other action of the Chief Justice or any Judge of the Court was referred to as prompting these accusations. No basis for making them has been shown other than that the Chief Justice has been praised. The imputations therefore are not only very grave but also unwarranted.

The Law recognizes the right of the press to criticize public acts done in the seat of justice. But this right of the press is no more than the right of any member of the public to criticize in good faith, temperately and fairly any episode in the administration of justice. When there is not fair criticism but imputations of unfairness and injustice are leveled at the Court such charges are regarded by the Law as most grievous contempts. The reason has been put this way; "they (such contempt) excite in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations - and whenever men's allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and dangerous obstruction of justice and calls for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction whatsoever, not for the sake of the judges or juries as private individuals, but because, they are the channels by which justice is conveyed to the people." (Wilmot C.J. Opinions). Such contempts have also been characterised as sapping the very foundation of the Constitution itself. "When therefore the press elects to condemn the administration of justice it must take care that the structure is rotten and deserves condemnation, for great and essential as is the function of the press the necessity for public confidence in the administration of justice is greater." (Stoby C.J. in R. v. Hinds 3 W.I.R. at page 17.)

I must also decide whether the Respondent intended the contempt committed. His statement that he did not so intend, as appears in his affidavit and public apology was considered along with his counsel's submissions in that regard. There has been no suggestion nor indication from the Respondent anywhere as to what the articles were intended to convey. This is not surprising. An analysis of the articles concerned preclude an acceptance of the plea that the Respondent did not intend to be scandalous. The Respondent, writer of the articles, stated more than once "it is time to change the judge." The articles set out the reasons why. The reasons given are the grave imputations made about the Court. I conclude that the Respondent intended to make the imputations which would show that there is neeed for a change of judge. I therefore took into account an intention of the Respondent to be scandalous of the Chief Justice and the Court.

There is the matter of the Respondent's apology. He has by affidavit unreservedly expressed regret for having written and published the articles and apologised to the Court. This regret and apology have also been expressed and published in an issue of the "Labour Beacon". He therein further stated his greatest regard for the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court. The apology appears in five other newspapers. I consider the Respondent's publishing of his apology to such an extent as an effort to have as lenient a sentence as possible.

When the publisher of a newspaper has committed contempt and makes an unqualified apology a court can be lenient but I must also bear in mind that the authority of and dignity and respect for the Supreme Court must be preserved. This has been a most grievous contempt. I remind myself of words referred to from time to time by eminent judges and referred to by then Acting Chief Justice Henriques here in Belize in 1955. They are appropriate to the situation in Belize today. "Nothing can be of greater importance to the welfare of the public than to put a stop to the animadversions and censures which are frequently made on Courts of justice in this country. They can be of no service and may be attended with the most mischievous consequences."

Having considered the matter from the above points of view and taking all the circumstances into account the application is granted and order that Cyril Davis serve fourteen days imprisonment without hard labour.

----------OO----------