Attorney General v Zimmerman and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T S Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 10 December 1985
• Neutral Citation: [1985] SGHC 38
• Date: 10 December 1985
• Subject Matter: Persons not cited in proceedings filed affidavits claiming responsibility for offensive political article,Committal,Publication of article in newspaper,Offensive article calculated to bring Singapore's judiciary into contempt or lower its authority,Criminal contempt,Whether court could commit of its own motion,O 52 r 4 Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Whether contempt of court,Contempt of Court
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 86 of 1985
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Joseph Grimberg (Drew & Napier),Teddy Lim (Wong & Lim),Tan Geok Ser and Naresh M Mahtani (Arthur Loke & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Boon Teik (Attorney General) and Glenn Knight (Director of Commercial Affairs Investigation Department)

Pursuant to leave granted by the High Court on 30 October 1985 the Attorney General moves this court for orders of committal against the five respondents cited in these proceedings for their several contempts of court for publishing, printing and distributing an article titled `Jeyaretnam`s Challenge` (the article) which appeared on 17 October 1985 issue of the Asian Wall Street Journal (the journal).

The first respondent is Mr Fred Zimmerman (Zimmerman), the Editor and Publisher of the Journal; the second respondents, Dow Jones Publishing Co (Asia) Inc (Dow Jones Asia), are the proprietors and publishers of the journal; the third respondent, Mr Stephen Duthie (Duthie), is the Singapore correspondent of the journal; the fourth respondents, Singapore Newspapers Services Pte Ltd (SNS), are the printers of the journal in Singapore; and the fifth respondent is Mr John Tan Yew How (John Tan), the manager and part owner of Total Subscription Services, the distributors of the journal in Singapore.

In addition to the abovenamed, arising from quite curious circumstances referred to later, there are three other persons not cited by the Attorney General who have come forward and filed affidavits in these proceedings and claimed responsibility for the preparation, writing and approval of the article for publication in the journal. They are Ms Melanie Margaret Kirkpatrick (Kirkpatrick), a Features Editor for the journal, Mr Paul Anthony Gigot (Gigot), the Editorial Page Editor of the Journal, and Mr Robert Le Roy Bartley (Bartley), the Editor of The Wall Street Journal , New York.

On being served with the motion papers and the supporting affidavits, the five respondents have filed separate affidavits. Except for the third respondent who categorically denies that he was in any way involved in the preparation or writing of the article, the others have given explanations and offered apologies for their participation in the publication of the article in the journal. It is clear beyond doubt that the article contains objectionable statements scandalising the courts of Singapore, the contempt of court being one of the worst of its kind.

The article is published in the Editorial Page of the journal in the editorial column entitled `Review & Outlook`. Though the journal is a business, economic and financial newspaper, the article is about politics in Singapore. What is complained of is that there are grave and serious allegations made in the article against the judiciary.

The learned Attorney General read the article in court. In his submission, he recounted the many untruths, half-truths, insinuations and innuendoes contained in the article which affect the integrity and impartiality of our courts. As the respondents do not contend that the article does not constitute contempt of court, I do not propose to repeat them here. It is enough that I identify the statements in the article that amount to contempt of court. I have itemised them, they speak for themselves.

Having said early in the article that Mr Jeyaretnam was found guilty in the district courts of making a false declaration and fined and sentenced to three months` imprisonment, it is said:

(1) We don`t know if Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty.

(2) But even if he were, many Singaporeans wouldn`t believe it ...

(3) ... court actions, and especially libel suits, have long been used in Singapore against opposition politicians.

(4) Mr Jeyaretnam`s conviction ... [has] outraged many Singaporeans, who believe that the government is deliberately trying to wipe out the opposition leader and his party.

(5) The fact that the magistrate who originally found Mr Jeyaretnam innocent has been demoted buttresses their case.

(6) One prominent political scientist ... believes that the government is keeping a close eye on the public reaction to Mr Jeyaretnam`s conviction and will have it overturned if it becomes a political hot potato.

(7) That doesn`t say much for Singaporeans` faith in the independence of their judiciary.

The statements that I have enumerated are without doubt irresponsible and offensive statements calculated to bring the judiciary of Singapore into contempt or to lower its authority. The statements in so many words question the integrity and impartiality of the courts. The outrageous allegation made in them is that our courts are not independent, that they do not decide on the evidence, the law and the arguments openly placed before them, and that they are influenced by outside considerations, in particular that the courts can be dictated to by the government. The statements are clearly calculated to undermine public confidence in the proper functioning of our courts.

As culpability is not in issue, I need only briefly explain the law relating to contempt of court. It is settled law in Singapore that it is contempt of court to scandalize a court or a judge. The principles governing this class of contempt were fully dealt with by the learned Chief Justice in the case of A-G v Pang Cheng Lian & Ors [1975] 1 MLJ 69 . Eight years later, in A-G v Wong Hong Toy [1982-1983] SLR 398 , I had occasion to review the law again. In the context of these proceedings, anyone who attacks the integrity or impartiality of a court or a judge commits contempt of court. The reason is simple. It undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.

There is another recent case that I want to refer to here as the facts are analogous and the contempt of court is of the same kind as in these proceedings. The case is Gallagher v Durack (1983) 57 ALJR 191. It is a decision of the High Court of Australia. In this case, Mr Gallagher, a very well-known union leader and secretary of a large trade union in Australia who was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to two months` imprisonment, successfully appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. On that day, after his appeal was allowed, he met the press and television reporters and distributed copies of a resolution by the management committee of the union. The first sentence of that resolution read:

The decision of the Federal Court is a credit to the rank and file of the Federation whose significant stand alongside their elected representatives, is the key to the reversal of the decision to jail Norm Gallagher.

When asked what his reaction or response was to the Federal Court`s decision, Gallagher said: `I`m very happy to the rank and file of the union who has shown such fine support for the officials of the union and I believe that by their actions in demonstrating in walking off jobs ... I believe that has been the main reason for the court changing its mind.`

The Federal Court held that in making that statement Gallagher was guilty of scandalizing the court and imposed a sentence of three months` imprisonment on him for contempt of court. The High Court refused Gallagher`s application for special leave to appeal as no ground had been shown to interfere with the decision of the Federal Court.

Gibbs CJ in upholding the findings of the Federal Court said that Gallagher`s statement that he believed that the actions of the rank and file of the union had been the main reason for the court changing its mind can only mean that he believed that the court was largely influenced in reaching its decision by the action of the members of the union in demonstrating as they had done. In other words, Gallagher was insinuating that the Federal Court had bowed to outside pressure in reaching its decision. The learned Chief Justice said that there can be no doubt that the offending statement amounted to a contempt of court. He said that the authority of the law rests on public confidence, and it is important to the stability of society that the confidence of the public should not be shaken by baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of courts or judge.

Now I turn to consider on the affidavit evidence before me, what the responsibility is of each of the respondents for the publication of the article.

The editor

It is a rule of law, said Lord Goddard CJ in R v Odhams Press Ltd & Ors [1957] 1 QB 73, 83 that the editor takes responsibility for what is published in his paper. Some ten years later, Lord Parker CJ in the case of R v Thomson Newspapers Ltd & Ors [1968] 1 All ER 268, 270 said that newspapers must very properly take elaborate precautions to see that they are not culpable of contempt of court by publication. A publisher must devise and the editor must ensure that he operates a system to avoid, as far as humanly possible, any contempt of court.

The first respondent, Zimmerman is the Editor and Publisher of the journal. He is also an Executive Vice-President of the second respondents, the proprietors of the journal. In his affidavit, Zimmerman affirms that he has been the Editor and Publisher of the journal since July 1984. Prior to that, for about 21 years, he has been on the staff of The Wall Street Journal in New York, first as a staff reporter and subsequently as a senior editor. As the Editor and Publisher of the journal, he accepts that he has overall responsibility for the day-to-day management of the newspaper and its contents, but with one exception which he affirms as follows:

7 The said article appeared on the Editorial Page of the [journal] ... The responsibility for the page rests with the Editorial Page Editor, Paul Gigot, who reports not to me but directly to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal in New York.

(8) About two years ago, Dow Jones New York decided that the Asian, European and US editions of The Wall Street Journal should all have a consistent approach and format on their editorial pages ... To put this decision into effect, a new position of Editorial Page Editor was created in Hong Kong. Paul Gigot was made Editor Page Editor. A new reporting structure was introduced whereby he would send drafts of editorials and other editorial page material for publication in the...