16 Nov 1984
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST LTD AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA1238/1984
Publication of a newspaper report on the day a jury was to consider its verdict that referred to cautioned statements ruled inadmissible constituted contempt because it was likely to interfere with the administration of justice; however mitigation (inadvertence, precautions, apology and corrective measures) justified only a nominal fine against the publisher and no personal penalty for the editor.