Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixyh40i wrote

Reply to comment by shadowrun456 in Pointing out spelling mistake leads to contempt conviction for Fiji lawyer by Mamacrass

The article says it pretty well, and is 5 lines long. What part of it confuses you ?

​

>The [facebook] post showed a picture of a judgment that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, with Naidu [the lawyer] adding the applicant wanted to have it correctly spelt.

If said lawyer and the person he represents wanted it corrected, they should have done it through the proper channels.

But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.

Note that it is not the judge that filed anything.

​

>The Attorney General had described the post as malicious and inviting others to mock the judiciary.

9

shadowrun456 t1_iy10uem wrote

>But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.

Nothing like that is written in the article, that's all your assumptions. Like I've said, this article seems to have some parts of the story missing.

1

Antibotics t1_iy1htnl wrote

It does appear to be in the article (somewhat paraphrased and extrapolated):

>The post showed a picture of a judgment that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, with Naidu adding the applicant wanted to have it correctly spelt. ... The Attorney General had described the post as malicious and inviting others to mock the judiciary.

A normal person wouldn't have posted the spelling mistake on Facebook (when a simple note to the judge in private would have sufficed) unless it was to invite comments from the public that were very likely to be embarrassing and disrespectful of the judge.

5

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2o5mk wrote

Thank you for stating the obvious. I was wondering why he was nort getting ti.

Remember that was posted by a lawyer, not the defendant.

the lawyer knows very well this was not the proper channel.

1