Justice delayed is justice denied.

This famous quote has been always the crux of the justice system in
any part of the continent as so long as human interaction with the court to seek justice. Thus, judicial
mechanics is most crucial factor in the judicial system and to ensure the smooth flow of the system it
must have proper criteria to that. As one of the most important components of the judicial system is
judges, they have to earned the respect of other officers of the court in order to dispense decisions
smoothly and accurately with the main objective is to preserve the due administration of justice, the
dignity of the court and to ensure the independent and impartiality of judiciary.

Lord Russel said that; “Courts or judges alike are open to criticism”

While judges are human and they are subject to criticism, however, there are limits to it and to
certain circumstances it may also leads to a breach of conduct which is punishable under the law –
the act - called contempt of court.

The Court in Manjeet Singh Dillon and AG & Ors v Arthur Lee Meng Kuan [1987] 1 MLJ 206 approved
the definition of contempt by Lord Russel in Gray who said that contempt of Court is any act/writing:

a. Calculated to bring the Court/Judge into contempt or lower his authority;

b. To obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or lawful process of the court.

A. TYPES OF CONTEMPT

There are two types of contempt:

1. Civil contempt also known as “contempt in procedure” which involves the breach of act or
assists in the breach of an order of Court or an undertaking to the court; and

2. Criminal contempt which are further segregated to three types:

a. Contempt in the face of the Court i.e breach of and act and conduct during trial before a
Judge which may take place in a courtroom or in chambers.

This may arise when there is a misbehavior or improper conduct in Court which include the
following cases:-

1. Re KUMARAENDRAN AN ADVOCATE & SLICITOR 1975] 2 MLJ 45: Challenging the

authority of the Court and arguing with the magistrate or judge;
2. Re TAI CHOI YU [1999] 1 MLJ 416 : Allegation of bias;
3. Re TT RAJAH : Using the court as a political forum
4. ANTHONY RATOS V CITY SPECIALIST CENTER [1996] 3 MLJ 349

It may arise also where there is obstruction of proper conduct of litigation or an interference
with the administration of justice by:

1. Concealing documents : CHEAH CHENG HOC V PP [1986] 1 MLJ 299;

2. Denying others right of access to the Courts : MALAYSIAN BAR V TAN SRI ABDUL
HAMID OMAR 1989] 2 MLJ 281;
3. Interfering with the conduct of litigation : KOPERASI SERBAGUNA TAIPING BARAT
BERHAD V LIM JOO THONG [1999] 6 MLJ 38;
 b. Scandalising the Court i.e making remarks outside the Court that derogatory to Court or the
judge or the administration of justice. The Attorney General or any private person or the
Court itself may institute contempt proceedings. Such situation may arise where:
1. AG & ORS V ARTUR LEE MENG KUANG [1987] 1 MLJ 206 : after the judgement was
given, the lawyer wrote letter crising the judgement of the Supreme Court, and
alleged the decision was unjust and biased. It was held to be contempt and in breach
of Rule 15.
2. TRUSTEES OF LEONG SAN THONG KHOO ONGSI V SM IDRIS & ANOR [1990] 1 MLJ
273 : the lawyer criticized the Court and Judge. It was held that he had acceded the
bounds of reasonably courtesy and not acting in god faith. He was fined RM5,000
and cost.
3. Manjeet Singh Dillon: the lawyer filed an affidavit containing allegations that the
Chief Justice was l unfit to be the Lord President'. The Attorney General applied to
imprison the lawyer for contempt of Court. The application was allowed
c. Sub judice comments i.e. making public comments about a matter that is to be heard or is
being heard in Court as it may prejudice the trial. In Cheak Yoke Thong, Salleh Abas LP
advised that lawyers should refrain from briefing the press.
d. Interfering with the course of justice i.e this is actually a catch-all category covers every
other form of criminal contempt which in any way obstructs or interferes with or deflects
the administration of justice. The action may include intimidation of witnesses, destroying
of evidence, changing notes of evidence, obstructing court officials from performing their
duties and others.

B. JURISDICTION AND POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT

The legislation that provides the power to punish contempt are as follows:-

a. Federal Constitution, Article 1 26: The Federal Court, the Court Appeal or the High Court
shall have power to punish any contempt of itself;

b. Courts of Judicature Act 1 964, section 1 3: The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or
the High Court shall have power to punish any contempt of;

c. Subordinate Courts Act 1 948, section 99A, Third Schedule, Clause 25: Additional powers
of Sessions Courts and Magistrates' Courts: Power to take cognisance of any contempt
of Court and to award punishment for the same, not exceeding, in the case of a Sessions
Court, a fine of three hundred ringgit or imprisonment for six weeks; in the case of a
Magistrates' Court presided over by a First Class Magistrate, a fine of one hundred and
fifty ringgit or imprisonment for three weeks; and in the case of a Magistrates' Court
presided over by a Second Class Magistrate, a fine of fifty ringgit or imprisonment for
one week; to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules

C. THE POSITION IN MALAYSIA

While there are countless precedents on the nature of the contempt of court however,
there is an ambiguity on the exact rules and codified act to identify which of the acts may
constitute a civil or criminal contempt.
The other issues relate to the identification of offences of contempt should be the definition
of the act of contempt itself be it civil and criminal as well as the procedure to follow, the
defences available, and/or the exact sentences for the various offences that relate to the
contempt of court.

While we may have the definition of civil contempt and the procedure which was laid down
in the Rules of the High Court 1980 and the Subordinate Cour Rules 1980, still the definition
of criminal contempt is not provided and is uncertain.

It is suggested that what was submitted by the Bar Council in which a memorandum to the
Prime Minister on the need to legislate the proposed Contempt of Court Act similar to that
of The Phillimore Committee in the United Kingdom and the Sanyal Committee, it is the
Attorney’s General Chambers which should take up this pertinent endevaour.