JCW

[Contempt of Court – issue of tampering with documents, issue of mens rea] Justin was the counsel for the Respondents. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal had amongst others ruled as follow (summarized in the Head Note of no. (5) of the law report) :- “(5) The first Form 75 and statutory declaration was material as well as an important documentary evidence in the applicants' removal application. Hence, the conduct of the appellant in tampering with material documentary evidence clearly amounted to an interference with the due administration of justice and constituted contempt of court. The appellant had not just acted in a manner which was likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice but had actually directly interfered with it by the positive act of amending the first Form 75 by way of lodging the second Form 75 and affirming the second statutory declaration. (paras 20, 25 & 26)” The Court of Appeal further held that although mens rea was not a necessary element of contempt, there was clear cut mens rea in the conduct of the Appellant here.