In 2014, the highest court of appeals for Mauritius overturned the conviction of a journalist for scandalizing the court in an article that was sharply critical of that country’s chief justice. In 2020, a well-known attorney was convicted of scandalizing the court in India for tweets that were critical of that country’s chief justice. While in Victoria, Australia, three government ministers narrowly escaped charges of scandalizing the court by apologizing for criticisms made of a high court judge’s sentence in a terrorist case. “Scandalizing the court,” otherwise referred to as “murmuring against judges,” has been defined as “conduct which denigrates judges of the court so as to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.” This article explores the action of scandalizing the court in three commonwealth countries. The three relatively recent cases are juxtaposed in order to provide the basis for the argument that these actions are not only ineffective in ensuring respect for the court or ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice, but also fly in the face of other important constitutional issues such as freedom of the press and the constitutional right to a fair trial. The action for scandalizing the court should be abolished in the commonwealth.

2014 年，毛里求斯最高法院推翻了对一名记者在一篇严厉批评该国首席大法官的文章中诽谤法院的判决。2020 年，一位知名律师因发布批评该国首席大法官的推文而诽谤印度法院而被定罪。在澳大利亚维多利亚州，三名政府部长就对一名高等法院法官在恐怖主义案件中的判决的批评道歉，勉强逃脱了诽谤法院的指控。“诽谤法庭”，也称为“诽谤法官”，被定义为“诋毁法庭法官的行为，从而破坏公众对司法行政的信心”。本文探讨了三个英联邦国家对法院的诽谤行为。将这三个相对较新的案例并列在一起，以便为以下论点提供依据，即这些行动不仅无法确保对法院的尊重或确保公众对司法的信心，而且还与其他重要的宪法问题背道而驰例如新闻自由和公平审判的宪法权利。联邦应废除诽谤法庭的诉讼。