(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is an ARTICLE 19 press release: ARTICLE 19 RECOMMENDS FAR-REACHING REFORM OF SRI LANKAN CONTEMPT LAW ARTICLE 19 has made a submission to the Sri Lankan Parliament Select Committee – Contempt of Court in Sri Lanka: Recommendations for Codification – setting out reforms adopted in other jurisdictions and making recommendations […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is an ARTICLE 19 press release:
ARTICLE 19 RECOMMENDS FAR-REACHING REFORM OF SRI LANKAN CONTEMPT LAW
ARTICLE 19 has made a submission to the Sri Lankan Parliament Select Committee – Contempt of Court in Sri Lanka: Recommendations for Codification – setting out reforms adopted in other jurisdictions and making recommendations for the new codified contempt rules.
The Sri Lankan Government appointed the Select Committee on 15 August 2003 to inquire into the law relating to contempt of court and to make recommendations for its codification. This review was prompted by the massive national and international reaction to the recent case of Michael Fernando, who was sentenced to a year in prison for criticizing the Chief Justice (1).
In its Submission, ARTICLE 19 notes a number of reforms to contempt of court law around the world. Key among these are the recognition of the need for better balancing between freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, as well as of the need to allow free comment on ongoing legal proceedings unless there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice. Courts in other jurisdictions are also moving away altogether from penalising criticism of courts and judges, subject only to laws on defamation. Finally, major process reforms have been instituted in a number of countries, to prevent the situation which occurred in Sri Lanka, whereby the same judge who had been criticised also adjudicated in the contempt proceeding.
The key ARTICLE 19 recommendations include the following:
* The purpose of contempt law should be to prevent prejudice to ongoing legal cases and to ensure the integrity of court procedures, not to prevent criticism of courts and judges
* No liability should ensue unless there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to an ongoing court proceeding or the court is actually being disrupted.
* Defences of truth, fair comment and public interest should apply to all charges of contempt.
* Judges should not adjudicate cases of contempt of court in which they are directly implicated.
The full Submission is available at: http://www.article19.org/docimages/1657.doc
Notes:
1. ARTICLE 19’s press release on the case can be seen at: http://www.article19.org/docimages/1522.doc
