S v Harber and Another (341/1986) [1988] ZASCA 34; [1988] 4 All SA 496 (AD) (30 March 1988)

S v Harber and Another (341/1986) [1988] ZASCA 34; [1988] 4 All SA 496 (AD) (30 March 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that intention (mens rea) is an essential element of the crime of contempt of court, including for media publications. The court rejected the strict liability rule for editors and publishers, finding that criminal liability should not attach in the absence of blameworthiness. The test for contempt is whether the publication tends to interfere with the administration of justice in pending proceedings, not whether actual prejudice occurred. In respect of the article concerning the judge's notes, the court found that the first appellant did not act intentionally or negligently, as he reasonably believed the notes were part of the record and had no reason to...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 34
Parties
Appellant: Anton Paul Harber; Appellant: Jo-Ann Bekker; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 1988
Case Number
341/1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Contempt of Court
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld. Conviction and sentence for the article concerning the judge's notes set aside. Convictions for contempt in respect of two other sections of the articles upheld. Sentence for first appellant reduced and suspended.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Van Heerden, Vivier, Viljoen
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Media Commentary on Pending Proceedings, Mens Rea, Strict Liability, Scandalising the Court
Criminal Law Telecoms and Media Contempt of Court Media Commentary on Pending Proceedings Mens Rea Strict Liability Scandalising the Court

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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anton Paul Harber

Appellant

Jo-Ann Bekker

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intention (mens rea) is an element of contempt of court for media publications.
  2. 2 Whether the publication of articles in the Weekly Mail constituted contempt of court by prejudging issues in pending proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants acted intentionally or negligently in publishing the articles.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that intention (mens rea) is an essential element of the crime of contempt of court, including for media publications. The court rejected the strict liability rule for editors and publishers, finding that criminal liability should not attach in the absence of blameworthiness. The test for contempt is whether the publication tends to interfere with the administration of justice in pending proceedings, not whether actual prejudice occurred. In respect of the article concerning the judge's notes, the court found that the first appellant did not act intentionally or negligently, as he reasonably believed the notes were part of the record and had no reason to...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld. Conviction and sentence for the article concerning the judge's notes set aside. Convictions for contempt in respect of two other sections of the articles upheld. Sentence for first appellant reduced and suspended.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed except for the substitution of the following sentence for the first appellant: Mr Anton Paul Harber is sentenced to a fine of R400 or two months' imprisonment. The whole of this sentence is suspended for a period of two years on condition that he is not found guilty of contempt of court...