The charge of scandalising the court should not be a reason to deny an accused person their constitutional rights, says Suva lawyer Jon Apted.
He said this in the Court of Appeal when Richard Naidu’s application for leave to appeal the High Court’s decision to refuse his applications to set aside and cross-examine the Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum on his affidavit in the contempt of court proceedings against Mr Naidu, was called before Court of Appeal judge Justice Dr Jayantha Almeida Guneratne.
Mr Naidu is also seeking a stay of the proceedings in the High Court until his proposed appeals are decided. Mr Apted said while responding to a point raised by the A-G’s lawyer Gul Fatima that the court must appear to the public as a court of justice.
“My friend says that because the victim of this alleged post is the court, the court must act quickly, but the court must also appear to the public to be a court of justice,” he said.
“Scandalising the court is not and can never be reason to deny rights to an accused person who is to be presumed innocent until the outcome.
“It cannot be a reason to deny rights that are available in every other criminal proceeding but not in this because the victim is the court,” he submitted.
Mr Apted submitted that if accused persons had rights in normal offence proceedings then they must also have the same rights in any contempt proceeding.
He said orders for committal meant committal to prison, and although the court had the discretion to vary that to a fine or a suspended sentence, the order the A-G sought was an order for committal to prison.
The contempt of court proceedings against Mr Naidu are listed for hearing on Thursday and Friday. The applications in the Court of Appeal may be called for a decision on Wednesday.
