Like writer Justice Seeker, I don’t feel good or right about Hoslan Hussain being punished so severely with 1 yr jail sentence. Mercy & compassion should be shown to the Imam. The shoe throwing incident on Feb 22 was when he lost control out of sheer frustration that all his allegations of corruption going on in his mosque to the relevant agencies went unaddressed. He was frustrated because his complaints (for public interest) were not heard in Palace of Justice just because of a techical point from the opposing side of his affidavit being out of time. The imam is not schooled in dscipline of law and its procdures; and he was not represented by legal counsel. This does not imply I am saying procedural rules and laws should not be followed strictly by the Court. They should or else there will be chaos. Neither am I saying that his behviour of throwing shoes is defensible. It is not. Respect for the courts should be maintained and if people like him throw shoes at judges – which is an act of his contempt for the court- then he better not go to the courts in the first instance and disrupt proceedings there. I am just saying that the courts should show mercy considering these extenuating circumstances and not punish him so severely.

This is because days and weeks after the direct contempt and the clear and present danger posed by him on Feb 22 to disrupt the court’s administration of justice – which is the whole purpose and business of Direct Contempt to address and stop- was way over and past . Some may even argue that Hoslan he had been forgiven and if so the authorities should have the grace not to afterwards effect reprisals. If they want reprisals there is nothing to stop the authorities from charging him days and weeks after under section 353 of the Penal Code for the offence of assaulting or using criminal force on any public servant (like a judge) in the execution of his public duty. But he ought not to be now charged for Direct Contempt that is way past. I believe it makes sense for Direct contempt to apply at the moment of time of the offence: once no action was taken and he was let off, one can’t revive direct contempt (as distinct from indirect contempt outside the scope of this posting to elaborate). To justice Seeker I would say that the reason why the same judge offended on 22nd Feb now sat again to punish him – the reason is because they treat the matter as direct contempt and in cases of direct contempt the judge offended had the every right to judge and punish the wrongdoer. The problem is they treat the present day meting out of punishment as if it is stuill Feb 22nd and that’s where I think it is wrong and would argue that one cannot punish direct contempt way after the offending incidence!

There is a serious question here, whether as a matter of law and common sense, one can still punish Hoslan for Direct Contempt of Court when such a punishment was not sought and exacted at the moment when it happened on the 22nd Feb (to stop the then contemptuous behaviour on his part) but a month later way after the incident when the very purpose of holding Hoslan for Direct Contempt and the very mischief which the law of Direct Contempt seeks to address and stop – ie his disrespectful act in court disruptive of court proceedings – is already way past and has ceased to pose at the present moment a danger or threat to orderly conduct of the proceedings in court. It is a disconcerting surprise to me that the Bar Council, which was represented in the latest proceedings, has thought it fit to support the demand of the AG’s office for deterrent punishment without asking the basic question whether Direct Contempt could still be instituted at a time way after the incident when its purpose is no more in existence!

oops correction in 2nd & 3rd line of preceding post (currently under moderation) : “…as something not quite morally and legally RIGHT…” – (not wrong)

The AG’s rep argued that a jail sentence was needed as a deterrent “It has brought ridicule to this honourable court.. A custodial sentence is warranted as a deterrent (to restore its dignity). How is this so? Is the apex Court’s dignity & moral position not better upheld by it by being consistent in its display of mercy and compassion appropriately shown at the first instance of the commission of offence of direct contempt on 22nd Feb instead of it subsequently and as an after thought retracting and rescinding that mercy and compassion already dispensed and going after the offender with vengeance under the banner of deterrence?