CONTEMPT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

• Date: 24 January 2019

"To our mind, since a contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, whereas in the present case, there are two equally likely possibilities open to the Court when considering the act complained of, it is not proper to hold that the offence of contempt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (See In re Bramblevale Ltd. (1969) 3 W.LR 669 at 705.) This view, is all the more important if we advert to the observation of Lord Atkin in the Privy Council in Ambard v. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago (1936) A.C. 322 at p. 335 which reads: "But whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are...