D. M. Patel v. R., Crim. App. 857-M-68, 31/1/69, Seaton J.

D. M. Patel v. R., Crim. App. 857-M-68, 31/1/69, Seaton J.

The appellant was convicted of contempt of court c/s 114 (1), Penal Code. The facts alleged against the appellant were that in the course of judicial proceedings, he showed disrespect to the court by speaking without its permission. It appears that the appellant old a witness in attendance at the court “Wewe shahidi kaa huku” (“You witness, come and sit over here”). Where the charge was read and explained to the appellant, he admitted that he had spoken without asking the permission of the court but said he did to know he had to do so. The appellant also admitted that he was wrong in not consulting his advocate, who was present, before communicating with his witness.

Held; It is clear from his judgment “that the learned magistrate did not direct his mind to the question of mens rea. This appears to me to have been misdirection. Section 114 (1) of the Penal Code makes it an offence if any person “(a) within the premises in which any judicial proceeding is being had …. Shows disrespect, in speech or manner, to or with reference to such proceeding, or any person before whom such proceeding is being had or taken”. The emphasis in that subsection seems to lie on the intention of the accused in doing the act complained of. This emphasis may not be so clear in the Common Law offence of contempt of court which is defined in Archbold (at par 3471, 35th Edn) ……. But learned State Attorney has conceded that intentional disrespect is an essential ingredient of the statutory offence in Tanganyika and I think this is clearly shown if subsection (1) of s.114 is read as a whole including subsection (1)(i), which makes it a crime if any person: “commits any other act of intentional disrespect to any judicial proceeding, or to any person before whom such proceeding is being had or taken’ (underlining added).