On 3rd September 2024, Guyanese social media personality and social commentator Mikhail Rodrigues was found guilty of criminal contempt of court.
The contempt proceedings were triggered after Rodrigues, while appearing in the High Court remotely via Zoom, broadcast portions of the hearing to his show “Morning Live with Critic” to Facebook. The court later learned about the broadcast and summoned Rodrigues.
In the summons, the court said that Rodrigues live-streamed select parts of the court proceedings without the permission and knowledge of the court, and by doing so, broadcast an incomplete and incorrect telling of what happened in court, thereby potentially hurting the public’s trust and confidence in the court, and by extension, the court’s ability to do its job.
Rodrigues’s defence was that he did now know that his conduct was wrong and wished to apologise unreservedly. He also mentioned being put in a state of panic.
The High Court ultimately found that Rodrigues’s conduct was a contempt of court. As penalty, the High Court ordered him to: i) pay a fine of $100,000 (the highest possible fine is $250,000 or a three-month imprisonment) by September 9th 2024, failure to do which would result in imprisonment for three days; and ii) issue a public apology in terms stipulated by the court.
This occurrence supplies a good opportunity to spread awareness on the law of contempt in Guyana, and its implications.
I often see Guyanese exhibiting contemptuous (not to mention defamatory) conduct on social media platforms when they disagree with judicial decisions. This includes accusing judges of being corrupt generally, taking bribes specifically, or even alleging intellectual lack or mental illness.
This article may also serve as guidance for young well-intended but ill or uninformed reporters who may be tempted to record court proceedings without permission.
This article does not break down the whole law of criminal contempt (perhaps I will do that in subsequent articles), instead, I seek to make a few points I hope readers will find useful.
First, there are two broad categories under which contempt falls: i) civil contempt and ii) criminal contempt.
Criminal contempt refers to any clear interference with the administration of justice that affects or is intended to affect the course or outcome of judicial proceedings, while civil contempt refers to disobedience to a judgement or order process of the court in a civil action.
This article will deal exclusively with criminal conduct for reasons I will explain briefly.
The law of contempt in Guyana is governed by the Contempt of Court Act, Cap 5:05, Laws of Guyana (“the CoC Act”), and common law (judicial decisions). Section 5 of the CoC Act states that any person who commits contempt of court shall be guilty of an offence. Since Rodrigues was accused of breaching the CoC Act, he was accused and found guilty of criminal contempt.
The term “contempt of court” is defined by the CoC Act to mean “any conduct, whether committed in the face of the court (in the courtroom, whether in person or remotely via Zoom etc) or not, that substantially obstructs or interferes with, prejudices, or tends to substantially obstruct or interfere with or prejudices the administration of justice in any proceedings pending before the court.”
Criminal contempt typically falls into one of the following categories:
1. Improper conduct in the face of the court;
2. Scandalising the court;
3. Failing to attend court; and
4. Abuse of process.
Section 2 of the CoC Act gives the following as examples of conduct amounting to contempt of court:
1. Wilful disobedience to, or disregard for, any
judgment, decree, direction or order of a court;
2. The wilful breach of an undertaking given in a
court;
3. Any insult or disrespect offered to the court;
4. The interruption of proceedings pending before
the court;
5. The use of abusive or threatening language;
6. The use of violence or threatening the use of
violence; or
7. Any act calculated to scandalise or lower the
authority.
These examples may fall into one or more of the four categories listed above.
Rodrigues was accused of breaching section 4 of the CoC Ac, and section 15 (5) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Remote Hearing Practice Directions (NO. 2) of 2020 (the Practice Directions”).
Section 4 of the CoC Act states that it is a contempt of court to use any instrument for recording sound while in court without the permission of the court. Under section 15 (5) of the Practice Directions one can only livestream proceedings for broadcast with the permission from the presiding judge.
The court said that Rodrigues’s actions were contempt of court (as it happened while he appeared remotely) (category 1 in this article). It added that publication without permission had generally been held over the years to be contemptuous as it undermines public confidence in the judicial system and amounts to scandalising the court (category 2 in this article), since the publication is likely to prejudice the right to a fair trial or in a more colloquial sense, to prevent trial by media.
Noting that there may be tension between this rule and freedom of expression in Guyana, the judge said that interference with the right of freedom of expression is necessary in a democratic society to protect the right to a fair trial and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
These concerns are arguably justifiable in our small society where virtually every Guyanese with internet access can access such videos, and, in the absence of proper explanations etc, be misled.
This event should serve as notice to all who would engage in any of this behaviour in or out of the court, including social media, that you are not beyond the reach of the court. Your comments on Facebook, TikTok, WhatsApp, Instagram etc. can be brought to the attention of the court, and you can suffer penalties.
Now, the CoC Act does permit, if not encourage criticism (see section 11 of the CoC Act), but this must be done in a fair manner. As such, I urge everyone to exercise reason, and to be measured, even and especially when exercising a view regarding a decision with which you disagree.
Finally, reporters covering court matters should be especially aware of these rules of law. Even if you do not intend to share or broadcast what you have recorded, it is still against the law. If you ignore these rules of law, you can suffer the same penalties. You may also have your recording devices forfeited and disposed of (see section 4 (3) of the CoC Act). This would be undesirable generally, but particularly for those who use their phones to record.
