THE QUEEN v MOHAMED HASHIM SHAMSUDIN

THE QUEEN v MOHAMED HASHIM SHAMSUDIN

The court held that although a common law power exists to postpone publication or restrict reporting in exceptional cases, the balance of factors favored open justice; the proposed partial censorship was impractical and unworkable and the risk of prejudice to the Carrian trial did not clearly outweigh the public interest in full and accurate reporting; therefore the application for reporting restrictions was refused and no reporting restrictions were imposed.

Citation
THE QUEEN v MOHAMED HASHIM SHAMSUDIN
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Accused: Mohamed Hashim Shamsudin; Co Defendant (carrian Trial): George Tan; Co Defendant (carrian Trial): Bentley Ho; Alleged Co Conspirator / Witness: Ibrahim Jaafar; Respondent in Extradition Proceedings: Lorrain Osman; Media Intervener: South China Morning Post
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 1987
Case Number
HCCC262/1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal (application for Reporting Restrictions) / Pre Trial Ruling on Application to Restrict Press Reporting Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for reporting restrictions refused; no restriction imposed on reporting of the Shamsudin proceedings
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, In Camera Sittings, Postponement of Publication, Jury Prejudice and Fair Trial, Press Freedom
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Media Law Contempt of Court Judicial Procedure Extradition/transfer Proceedings Anti Bribery Law Reporting Restrictions Open Justice +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Mohamed Hashim Shamsudin

Accused

George Tan

Co Defendant (carrian Trial)

Bentley Ho

Co Defendant (carrian Trial)

Ibrahim Jaafar

Alleged Co Conspirator / Witness

Lorrain Osman

Respondent in Extradition Proceedings

South China Morning Post

Media Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal (application for Reporting Restrictions) / Pre Trial Ruling on Application to Restrict Press Reporting Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should impose full or partial reporting restrictions on the Shamsudin trial
  2. 2 Whether common law power exists to postpone publication or censor parts of reporting to protect fair trial rights in a related ongoing trial
  3. 3 How to balance open justice and press freedom against risk of prejudice to jurors and co-defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although a common law power exists to postpone publication or restrict reporting in exceptional cases, the balance of factors favored open justice; the proposed partial censorship was impractical and unworkable and the risk of prejudice to the Carrian trial did not clearly outweigh the public interest in full and accurate reporting; therefore the application for reporting restrictions was refused and no reporting restrictions were imposed.

Court Disposition

Application for reporting restrictions refused; no restriction imposed on reporting of the Shamsudin proceedings

Orders

  • Application for partial or full reporting ban refused
  • Direction that there shall be no restriction on reporting of this application or of the trial of Mohamed Hashim Shamsudin