THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA ...
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA ...
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
mala fide’ defiance of a court order. 7proceedings for contempt of court:In Fakie 8 this court said the following in relation to‘[O]nce the applicant has proved the order, service or notice, and non-compliance, the respondentbears an evidential burden in relation to wilfulness and mala fides. Should the respondent fail toadvance evidence that establishes a reasonable doubt as to whether non-compliance was wilfuland mala fide, contempt will have been established beyond reasonable doubt.’25[84] Far from laying such a basis the evidence in this case establishes the contrary. MsWeideman was pertinently aware that she was prohibited from disclosing the identity ofthe alleged offender yet she deliberately set about to do so. Her denial that she intendedto disclose the identity of the alleged molester is palpably untrue. There was nosuggestion in her affidavit that she believed that she was entitled to achieve what sheknew was prohibited provided only that she achieved it through a ruse or that any suchbelief would be bona fide. The ineluctable finding in those circumstances is that shepublished the material deliberately and in bad faith in breach of the order. That is not thepursuit of media freedom – it is contempt of court.[85] I agree with my colleague that the` act of Ms Weideman must be taken to be thesimultaneous act of Media 24. I also agree that Ms Venter cannot be said to haveoffended. For those reasons I agree with the order that he proposes._______________________R W NUGENTJUDGE <strong>OF</strong> <strong>APPEAL</strong>7 Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) paras 9 and 10.8 Note 2 above.