Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DankPhotoShopMemes t1_ixuxgly wrote

Reply to comment by randomFrenchDeadbeat in Pointing out spelling mistake leads to contempt conviction for Fiji lawyer by Mamacrass

What exactly is contempt? I thought it was just not doing what the court says

9

ijmacd t1_ixv3290 wrote

That's one way.

Contempt means not showing respect.

You could show a lack of respect to the court by not obeying it. Or you could try to humiliate the judge.

23

shadowrun456 t1_ixvphgt wrote

>You could show a lack of respect to the court by not obeying it. Or you could try to humiliate the judge.

Ok, but how does pointing out the judge's spelling mistake humiliate them? Even if the judge gets humiliated, that's because the judge made a spelling mistake, not because someone said the judge made a spelling mistake.

This article seems to have some parts of the story missing.

0

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixyh40i wrote

The article says it pretty well, and is 5 lines long. What part of it confuses you ?

​

>The [facebook] post showed a picture of a judgment that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, with Naidu [the lawyer] adding the applicant wanted to have it correctly spelt.

If said lawyer and the person he represents wanted it corrected, they should have done it through the proper channels.

But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.

Note that it is not the judge that filed anything.

​

>The Attorney General had described the post as malicious and inviting others to mock the judiciary.

9

shadowrun456 t1_iy10uem wrote

>But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.

Nothing like that is written in the article, that's all your assumptions. Like I've said, this article seems to have some parts of the story missing.

1

Antibotics t1_iy1htnl wrote

It does appear to be in the article (somewhat paraphrased and extrapolated):

>The post showed a picture of a judgment that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, with Naidu adding the applicant wanted to have it correctly spelt. ... The Attorney General had described the post as malicious and inviting others to mock the judiciary.

A normal person wouldn't have posted the spelling mistake on Facebook (when a simple note to the judge in private would have sufficed) unless it was to invite comments from the public that were very likely to be embarrassing and disrespectful of the judge.

5

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2o5mk wrote

Thank you for stating the obvious. I was wondering why he was nort getting ti.

Remember that was posted by a lawyer, not the defendant.

the lawyer knows very well this was not the proper channel.

1

thesausboss t1_ixvtdf2 wrote

I didn't read anything on this post or background. But I can imagine that the method or wording when doing so would directly impact whether or not it's considered contempt.

7

Barkinsons t1_ixv3j9z wrote

It can be expanded to basically anything that interferes with the orderly administration of justice, and this includes upholding the dignity of the courts. The reasoning is that if lawyers would start to make a joke of the whole procedure, the entire process loses its legitimacy.

3

jimi15 t1_ixwn77p wrote

So the right to satire doesnt apply to judges? Despite it applying to any other public figure?

1

Barkinsons t1_ixxytnx wrote

The point here is that the lawyer involved in the case made the post, any unaffiliated person can still make fun of the judge.

5