IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
[WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN]
REPORTABLE 
CASE NO. 3392/2008

In the matter between: 
JURIE CHRISTIAAN ELS 				APPLICANT
And
ESMARE WEIDEMAN 				FIRST RESPONDENT
MEDIA 24 (PTY)  LTD)				SECOND RESPONDENT

Coram :	DLODLO, J
Judgment  by:	DLODLO, J

For the Applicant:	ADV. D. DORFLING (SC)

Instructed by:	Du Plessis & Associates (JHB) 
C/o De Klerk & Van Gend

132 Adderley Street
CAPE TOWN
(REF. S HILL) 
TEL. NO. (021)424 9200

For the Respondents:	ADV. S BURGER (SC)
Instructed:			Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc. (JHB) 
C/o Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc (CPT) 
11 Buitengracht Street 
CAPE TOWN 
(REF: L. NIEMAND) 
TEL. NO. (021)481 6300

Date(s) of Hearing :	19 SEPTEMBER 2011
Judgment delivered on:	 07 DECEMBER 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN]
REPORTABLE 
CASE NO. 3392/2008

In the matter between:
JURIE CHRISTIAAN ELS					APPLICANT
And
ESMARE WEIDEMAN						FIRST RESPONDENT
MEDIA 24 (PTY) LTD)						SECOND RESPONDENT

DLODLO, J
[1] On 18 March 2009 this Court dismissed an application seeking conviction of the Respondents for contempt of Court in respect of an order made in the South Gauteng High Court on 13 February 2008 in which certain interdictory relief was granted to the Applicant. On appeal the Supreme Court of Appeal, however, reversed this Court's decision and returned a verdict of guilty. The matter was thereafter remitted to this Court to consider and, if necessary, hear evidence as to the sanctions appropriate to the offences committed by the First and Second Respondents and to impose the determined sanctions and to make an appropriate award of costs. Mr Dorfling (SC) and Mr Burger (SC) appeared before me on behalf of the Applicant and the two Respondents respectively. I fully agree with Mr Dorfling (SC) that this Court is duty bound to consider the appropriate sentence against the backdrop of the factual findings made by the Supreme Court of Appeal on the merits of this matter. I hasten to add though that this being sentencing it remains ordinarily governed by the normal factors that must always be taken into account whenever any person has been convicted and must be punished for his wrongdoings.

[2] It is common cause that the Applicant, when he applied for interdictory relief sought to prevent the publication of certain material alleging him to have been the molester over many years of the Afrikaans singer, one Robbie Klay. Sutherland AJ of the South Gauteng High Court as pointed, out earlier, granted the urgent interim interdictory relief effectively preventing the publication of an article containing the aforesaid material. It is not necessary to deal in detail with the findings made by the Supreme Court of Appeal for purposes of sentencing. It suffices to mention that I have thoroughly read the Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment in this regard and shall take the findings into account in my further handling of this matter.

"In the hands of a private party, the application for committal for contempt is a peculiar amalgam, for it is a civil proceeding that invokes a criminal sanction or its threat. And while the litigant seeking enforcement has a manifest private interest in securing compliance, the court grants enforcement also because of the broader public interest in obedience of its orders, since disregard sullies the authority of the courts and detracts from the rule of law. "

"The offense has, in general terms, received a constitutional 'stamp of approval', since the rule of law — a founding value of the constitution -'requires that the dignity and authority of the courts, as well as their capacity to carry out their functions, should always be maintained. "

[5] The personal circumstances of Ms Weideman, the First Respondent, are set out in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of her Affidavit filed for purposes of the present proceedings. It would be appropriate to quote these paragraphs hereunder:
"13 Ek het 26 jaar ervaring as joernalis, eers as sake- en politieke beriggewer, daarna as nuusredakteur en daarna in talle bestuurshoedanighede by verskeie publikasies. In 2001 is ek aangestel as die redakteur van You en 'n jaar daarna ook as redakteur van Huisgenoot. Ek was redakteur van hierdie twee publikasies, die tweee grootste tydskrifte in Suid-Afrika, tot September 2010 toe ek bevorder is tot hoofredakteur van onder meer Huisgenoot en You. In Mei 2011 is ek aangestel as uitvoerende hoof van Media24.

14. Tydens my redakteurskap van Huisgenoot en You het die tydskrifte talle pryse ontvang, en verskeie van die joernaliste op my personeel is vir hul gehaltewerk bekroon. Ek self is as tydskrifredakteur van die jaar bekroon by die jaarlikse PICA-toekennings. Binne Naspers en Media24 het ek ook verskeie pryse ontvang, wot Naspers se hoogste eerbewys, die Phil Weber-prys, ingesluit het.
15. As joernalis en redakteur was feitelik korrekte beriggewing altyd my hoogste prioriteit. Ek het gereeld met joernaliste geskakel in my hoedanigheid as redakteur om heeltemal seker te maak dat hul feite en interpretasie van die bepaalde berig korrek was. Buiten die onderhawige voorval, is ek nog nooit van minagting van die hof beskuldig nie. "

"5. Media24 Koerante publiseer 97 koerante, wat insluit 11 koerante wat weekliks publiseer word, 7 dagblaaie en 79 gemeenskapskoerante. Die gesamentlike daaglikse sirkulasie van die koerante beloop meer as 6 miljoen eksemplare.

6. Media24 tydskrifte publiseer 62 tydskrifte wat insluit 7 tydskrifte wat weekliks gepubliseer word, 26 maandeliks en 15 jaarlikse publikasies. Daar is ook 'n aantal publikasies wat twee maal per maand gepubliseer word, en ander kwartaaliks gepubliseer word. In total het hierdie publikasies 'n lesertaal van meer as 13 miljoen. Dit verteenwoordig 77,8 % van alle tydskriflesers in Suid-Afrika.
7. Naspers Beperk, Media24 se houermaatskappy se dagblad Die Burger verskyn reeds sedert 1915, synde die stigtingsjaar van die houermaatskappy. Die Huisgenoot het die liggesien in 1918.
8. Na die beste van my wete is die bevinding deur die HHA in hierdie aangeleentheid die eerste geleentheid waarby enige van Media24 se publikasies aan minagting van die hof skuldig bevind is. "

"Die belang van die gemeenskap by 'n straf wat opgele word, is veelledig. In sommige gevalle tree die belang na vore wanneer die gemeenskap beskerm moet word teen die gedrag van 'n bepaalde individu. In ander gevalle verdien die belang oorweging wanneer die orde en vrede in die gemeenskap ter sprake kom. In ander gevalle weer tree die belang na vore wanneer lede van die gemeenskap afgeskrik moet word. "

[7] Mr Dorfling submitted in aggravation of sentence that the Second Respondent is on all accounts a massive media giant and therefore its publications constitute a powerful communications tool in the hand of those controlling it and that if abused or misused, it can and will lead to a devastating trail of destruction. In his submission it is imperative that the individuals and legal entities controlling such media giant act responsibly. I fully agree with this submission. The First Respondent was placed in a position of trust and had immense power; she was the driving force in the whole process. I take into account also that damage has been done and cannot be reversed anymore. In the words of Mr Dorfling indeed the horse has bolted. The forbidden article has been published. This country and of course the world at large would be poorer without the media. Media (both electronic and print) constitutes the cornerstone on which any society, any country or continent is built. It must be mentioned that the independence of the media is of absolute importance in a democratic dispensation which South Africa is. That is why its independence is enshrined in the Constitution. This Court will always protect and uphold the media independence. However, the media must also exercise its independence responsibly. In the instant matter there was already a Court order in existence forbidding the publication of the material. Whilst I accept that legal opinion was sought and obtained prior to the publication I also believe that the matter could have been handled differently and much more carefully in view of the existence of the Court order. It must have been tempting indeed to take the risk after the acquisition of the legal opinion. Risks should be avoided at all costs because at times the consequences of taking risks can be very devastating or even catastrophic to say the least.

In the above cited case the trial Judge fined the editor concerned £5, 000 and the publisher £20, 000. I am of the view though that the First and Second Respondents should for all intent and purposes be treated like persons or entities who and which have been found guilty of a crime in the strict sense of the word. As such, all considerations ordinarily relevant in sentencing in criminal Courts should apply also in the instant matter. It is for this reason that these considerations have been dealt with in these sentence proceedings. I have thus come to the conclusion that the following constitutes a well-balanced, proportionate and appropriate sentence that addresses all relevant considerations:
(a) The First Respondent is sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of Fifteen thousand rand (R15 000) 
(b)The Second Respondent is sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of Sixty thousand rand (R60 000) 
(c) The fine shall be payable strictly within a period of fourteen (14) days from date hereof.
(d) The two Respondents are ordered to pay costs of the application which was argued before this Court on 18 March 2009, on the scale as between Attorney and client. The Respondents are liable for these costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.

DLODLO, J