Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 706537,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706537/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 194,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gikaria",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2489,
        "legal_name": "David Gikaria",
        "slug": "david-gikaria"
    },
    "content": "This Bill says that the criminal contempt has to get consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). In the past, courts have used that to get back at other people unfairly. It is important to get a view from the DPP regarding a criminal contempt. The provisions under that clause are very clear. Under Clause 7 of the Bill, the defence for contempt has also been clearly outlined including defence for innocent publication. We should also seal loopholes so that it is not misused. Under Clause 13 of the Bill, they are saying that you might not know that there is a life case going on and you do a publication about it. You can use that as a defence. If we allow that to continue, people will use that as a scapegoat to do contempt of court but get out of it by indicating that they were not aware that the case was going on. Clause 7 of the Bill indicates that the Chief justice can give the rules and procedures of a contempt case. It further says that he will give appeals and limitations of appeals. That is dangerous because the CJ can gag that one cannot appeal against a contempt case. We should look at those limitations and bring some amendments in the Third Reading. We should not give the CJ a lot of powers that he might interfere with the due process of the law. With those few remarks, I support."
}