<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>WSJ senior editor fined $10,000 for contempt of court
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>Editor responsible for three articles in its sister paper </TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- Author --></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Zakir Hussain
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- show image if available --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->A SENIOR editor of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) newspaper was found in contempt of court yesterday and fined $10,000.
Ms Melanie Kirkpatrick, deputy editor of the New York-based financial daily's editorial page, was not in court when Justice Tay Yong Kwang gave his judgment.
<TABLE width=200 align=left valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD class=padr8><!-- Vodcast --><!-- Background Story -->What the articles said
SINGAPORE'S High Court found last November that three articles in the Wall Street Journal Asia were in contempt of court.
It said they had alleged bias and lack of independence on the part of the judiciary.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>However, she had acknowledged responsibility for the publication of three articles in the Journal's sister paper - the WSJ Asia - that had been found in contempt of court last November.
The articles were published last June and July and Dow Jones Publishing (Asia), publisher of WSJ Asia, was fined $25,000 by the Singapore High Court.
Ms Kirkpatrick has seven days to pay the fine.
Yesterday, Principal Senior State Counsel David Chong told the High Court why the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) took her to court.
He said convicting just the publisher for contempt 'would not be a sufficient deterrence to editors who are responsible for the contents of WSJ Asia'.
The AGC wanted the editor responsible for the publication of the articles to be held 'accountable for her actions'.
He argued that from her editorial decisions that led to the publication of the articles, she had committed contempt.
That Ms Kirkpatrick and others in WSJ Asia might disagree with Singapore's laws on freedom of speech and expression 'does not give any of them the licence to undermine the institutions which uphold the rule of law in this country', he added.
He cited several aggravating factors.
One, she was a repeat offender, having written an article in the Asian WSJ in 1985 that was found to be in contempt here. She got most of her facts wrong, she apologised and was fined $4,000.
Two, three offending articles were published in a three-week period, pointing to a pattern of undermining public confidence in courts here.
Three, she played a significant part in committing the contempt and was personally responsible for the articles.
Four, she had not apologised 'nor stated explicitly that she accepts that the courts of Singapore apply the law of Singapore without fear of favour'. She also did not undertake not to make further imputations against the independence of Singapore courts and judges in future.
Mr Chong called for a sufficiently deterrent sanction 'to dissuade her and other like-minded individuals...from engaging in a brand of journalism that seeks to denigrate the Singapore judiciary'.
He said the fine should be no less than the $25,000 Dow Jones received.
Ms Kirkpatrick's lawyer, Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, said that like Dow Jones, she 'had no intention or desire to undermine any institution in Singapore, including the Singapore judiciary and its individual judges'.
He said an appropriate fine would not be more than $10,000.
In reply, Mr Chong said Ms Kirkpatrick had chosen not to apologise, despite overtures from the AGC to resolve the case if non-controversial, factual acknowledgements were made.
In handing down the fine, Justice Tay noted that Ms Kirkpatrick was a second offender, unlike Dow Jones which had been found in contempt on three occasions - in 1985, 1989 and last year.
He also took into account that she did not contest the court's finding that the three articles were in contempt of court.
Justice Tay ordered that costs of $10,000 be paid to the AGC.
Mr Chong also told the court the AGC would discontinue related contempt proceedings against WSJ Asia's editors Christine Glancey and Daniel Hertzberg.
Both had denied any responsibility for the paper's editorials and opinion section, and proceedings against them had been temporarily set aside.
Said Mr Chong: 'The public interest in protecting the Singapore judiciary from unwarranted attacks has been adequately served in this case.'
In a statement yesterday, Dow Jones said it strongly disagreed with the Court's finding that the articles constituted contempt of court. 'It is regrettable that although the Court already imposed a fine against Dow Jones, the Attorney- General still chose to pursue additional contempt charges,' it said.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>Editor responsible for three articles in its sister paper </TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- Author --></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Zakir Hussain
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- show image if available --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->A SENIOR editor of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) newspaper was found in contempt of court yesterday and fined $10,000.
Ms Melanie Kirkpatrick, deputy editor of the New York-based financial daily's editorial page, was not in court when Justice Tay Yong Kwang gave his judgment.
<TABLE width=200 align=left valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD class=padr8><!-- Vodcast --><!-- Background Story -->What the articles said
SINGAPORE'S High Court found last November that three articles in the Wall Street Journal Asia were in contempt of court.
It said they had alleged bias and lack of independence on the part of the judiciary.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>However, she had acknowledged responsibility for the publication of three articles in the Journal's sister paper - the WSJ Asia - that had been found in contempt of court last November.
The articles were published last June and July and Dow Jones Publishing (Asia), publisher of WSJ Asia, was fined $25,000 by the Singapore High Court.
Ms Kirkpatrick has seven days to pay the fine.
Yesterday, Principal Senior State Counsel David Chong told the High Court why the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) took her to court.
He said convicting just the publisher for contempt 'would not be a sufficient deterrence to editors who are responsible for the contents of WSJ Asia'.
The AGC wanted the editor responsible for the publication of the articles to be held 'accountable for her actions'.
He argued that from her editorial decisions that led to the publication of the articles, she had committed contempt.
That Ms Kirkpatrick and others in WSJ Asia might disagree with Singapore's laws on freedom of speech and expression 'does not give any of them the licence to undermine the institutions which uphold the rule of law in this country', he added.
He cited several aggravating factors.
One, she was a repeat offender, having written an article in the Asian WSJ in 1985 that was found to be in contempt here. She got most of her facts wrong, she apologised and was fined $4,000.
Two, three offending articles were published in a three-week period, pointing to a pattern of undermining public confidence in courts here.
Three, she played a significant part in committing the contempt and was personally responsible for the articles.
Four, she had not apologised 'nor stated explicitly that she accepts that the courts of Singapore apply the law of Singapore without fear of favour'. She also did not undertake not to make further imputations against the independence of Singapore courts and judges in future.
Mr Chong called for a sufficiently deterrent sanction 'to dissuade her and other like-minded individuals...from engaging in a brand of journalism that seeks to denigrate the Singapore judiciary'.
He said the fine should be no less than the $25,000 Dow Jones received.
Ms Kirkpatrick's lawyer, Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, said that like Dow Jones, she 'had no intention or desire to undermine any institution in Singapore, including the Singapore judiciary and its individual judges'.
He said an appropriate fine would not be more than $10,000.
In reply, Mr Chong said Ms Kirkpatrick had chosen not to apologise, despite overtures from the AGC to resolve the case if non-controversial, factual acknowledgements were made.
In handing down the fine, Justice Tay noted that Ms Kirkpatrick was a second offender, unlike Dow Jones which had been found in contempt on three occasions - in 1985, 1989 and last year.
He also took into account that she did not contest the court's finding that the three articles were in contempt of court.
Justice Tay ordered that costs of $10,000 be paid to the AGC.
Mr Chong also told the court the AGC would discontinue related contempt proceedings against WSJ Asia's editors Christine Glancey and Daniel Hertzberg.
Both had denied any responsibility for the paper's editorials and opinion section, and proceedings against them had been temporarily set aside.
Said Mr Chong: 'The public interest in protecting the Singapore judiciary from unwarranted attacks has been adequately served in this case.'
In a statement yesterday, Dow Jones said it strongly disagreed with the Court's finding that the articles constituted contempt of court. 'It is regrettable that although the Court already imposed a fine against Dow Jones, the Attorney- General still chose to pursue additional contempt charges,' it said.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
