S v Fanti and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Galgut JA
• Judgment Date: 30 September 1991
• Citation: 1991 (2) SACR 650 (CkA)
• Hearing Date: 30 September 1991
• Counsel: M G Ndzondo for the appellants L S Mrwebi for the State
• Court: Ciskei Appellate Division

Galgut JA:

The appellants were found guilty, by a Judge of the General Division, of contempt of Court. They were sentenced to five years', four years' and two years' imprisonment respectively. They sought leave to appeal only against their sentences. This was granted by the learned trial Judge.

During the hearing of the appeal an application was made, on behalf of I appellant No 3, to appeal also against his conviction. This application was, correctly, not opposed by the State. Appellant No 3 was then granted such leave. There is therefore now before us the appeals by appellants Nos 1 and 2 against their sentences, and by appellant No 3 against his conviction and sentence.

The indictment in the present case alleges that on 24 October 1989 a Judge of the General Division of the Supreme Court of Ciskei ordered J that -

Galgut JA

A '. . . the Commanding Officer and any other police official on duty and in control at the Peddie Police Station should release one G J du Preez forthwith on warning;

and whereas this order was conveyed telephonically by the Registrar of the Supreme Court to accused No 3, who at that stage was the charge-office sergeant and thus in charge at the charge-office at Peddie Police Station;

B and whereas during the evening of 24 October the above-mentioned order was personally handed to each of the three accused by an assistant deputy sheriff;

and whereas accused No 1, who at the relevant time was the District Commandant for Peddie, accused No 2, who at the relevant time was the Station Commander of the Peddie Police Station, and accused No 3 C refused or failed to release G J du Preez forthwith on warning;

now therefore on or about 24 October 1989 and at or near the Peddie Police Station, in the district of Peddie, the accused did unlawfully and with the intent to impair the dignity and honour of the Supreme Court of Ciskei, refuse or fail to obey such order;

and thus the said accused committed the crime of contempt of Court.'

The following definition of the crime of contempt of Court was D accepted in R v Torch Printing & Publishing Co (Pty) Ltd and Others 1956 (1) SA 815 (C) at 820.

'Any wilful act or omission calculated to bring into contempt or disrepute the administration of justice, whether by insulting the officials charged therewith or by rendering it ineffective.'

In In re McKenzie 1933 AD 367 at 369 Stratford ACJ adopted the E following definition:

'Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority, is a contempt of Court.'

In Hunt South African Criminal Law and Procedure vol 2 (revised 2nd ed, 1990) the learned author states (at 185):

'Contempt of court consists in unlawfully and intentionally F violating the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body, or interfering in the administration of justice in a matter pending before it.'

At 205 of the same work it is said:

'It is clear that X, by disobeying a court order which has been made against him, may commit the criminal offence of contempt of court. Not every failure to comply with a court order falls into this G category; the definition of the offence must be satisfied: the court's dignity, repute or authority must be intentionally and unlawfully violated.'

The crime of contempt of court has many forms. As appears from the indictment, the form here was a wilful refusal to obey an order of Court.

It will be seen from what is set out below that appellants Nos 1 and 2 did wilfully so refuse. This is not disputed. It was also not suggested, H nor could it have been, that the conduct of appellants Nos 1 and 2 was not calculated to bring the Supreme Court into contempt, or to lower its authority. I am, however, of the opinion, for reasons which will be set out later, that it has not been shown that appellant No 3 wilfully refused to obey the order, or that his conduct was calculated to bring the Supreme Court into contempt or to lower its authority.

The trial Court record is approximately 400 pages. I will set out as I briefly...