Tan Sri Razarudin Bin Husain @ Abd Rasid v Wan Muhammad Azri Bin Wan Deris

Case Significance

A striking illustration of the committal jurisdiction, in which a court imposed imprisonment on a contemnor who breached an injunction and then mocked and repudiated the apology he had given to purge his contempt, holding that a fine would have had no deterrent effect.

This High Court decision in Kuala Lumpur concerns committal for contempt of court arising out of a defamation action. The plaintiff, then the Inspector-General of Police, had obtained an interlocutory injunction against the defendant — a blogger who described himself as a government critic and whom the court characterised as a cybertrooper — restraining the publication of defamatory statements. The defendant breached the injunction by posting defamatory statements on his social media accounts. Brought before the court, he tendered an apology and gave an undertaking to post that apology on the same accounts on which the offending statements had appeared. The manner in which he purported to comply, however, made a mockery of the undertaking: the apology was scrolled at high speed so as to be unreadable, background music from a comedy was added, and it was not posted on all of the relevant accounts. The following day the defendant compounded matters by creating a live-stream video of himself uttering statements that showed no remorse, the effect of which was to repudiate the apology he had recorded in court. The court held that the failure to comply with its order was plain contempt of court, and that the defendant was guilty of contempt both in respect of his mock apology and in respect of the subsequent video. Turning to sentence, the court found that the defendant had shown no remorse and was well aware of the consequences of his conduct, and that a fine would amount to no more than 'a flick on the knuckles' with no deterrent effect on someone in his position. It held that imprisonment was the appropriate sentence and imposed a term of fifteen days' imprisonment for each of the two contempt charges. The judgment is a striking illustration of the court's willingness to imprison a contemnor who deliberately mocks and then repudiates an apology given to purge his contempt.