This is the summary for the grounds of judgment for Malaysiakini’s application to set aside the contempt proceedings relates to comments made by online users (due to the nature of the comments, it will not be reproduced in this blog) which appeared in Malaysiakini’s website on the 9 June 2020.
Facts found by the court:
The first respondent facilitates publication;
The editorial policy allowing editing, removing and modifying comments;
Only upon being made aware by the police, the first respondent indeed removed the comments;
Evidence revealing that the editors of the 1st respondent review postings on a daily basis.
The court dismissed the first respondent’s application because the court are of the view that the respondents had published the impugned comments and that a prima facie case had been made out.
Under 114A of the Evidence Act 1950, the first respondent is presumed to have published the impugned comments and they have the burden to rebut the presumption. A prima facie case had been established because the comments are contemptuous as agreed be both parties and these comments appeared on Malaysiakini’s news portal.
114A(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 is as follows:
“114A. (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.”
Other grounds relied upon by the respodents to set aside the leave:
1. Non-compliance with O.52 r.2B of the Rules of Court 2012
“Other cases of contempt (O. 52, r. 2B)
2B. In all other cases of contempt of Court, a formal notice to show cause why he should not be committed to the prison or fined shall be served personally.”
On this ground, the court held that the non-compliance is not fatal or prejudicial to the respondent. Under O.2 r.1 of the Rules of Court 2012, it will not nullify the proceedings and the court have the overriding objective to enable the court to deal with cases justly.
2. Commencement at the Federal Court
The court held that the impugned comments implicate the judiciary as a whole, which also include the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, therefore the court are of the view that the Federal Court is the right forum to commence these proceedings.
On all above reasons, the application is dismissed by the court.
The full ground of judgment can be accessed in the link here
Yorumlar