By Kim Arlington
THEY say the punishment should fit the crime.
So when a disgruntled contractor disparaged a former employer in breach of court orders, a Supreme Court judge tailored an unusual penalty: he ordered him to submit a handwritten essay on why his contempt of court was wrong.
As well as fining Wayne Eckett $50,000, Acting Justice Brian Tamberlin made completing the essay a condition of his three-year good behaviour bond.
The essay had to be between 300 and 500 words long and pay particular regard to ''the importance of respect for court orders and the rule of law generally'', the judge said.
If Eckett does not hand it in to the registrar of the court's equity division by the stipulated deadline, his bond may be revoked and he may be resentenced.
Eckett's dispute with his one-time employer dated back more than a decade.
He was contracted to provide consultancy services to an international media company, MindShare, but the termination of his contract in 1999 sparked a legal battle.
After the case was settled, Eckett breached the terms of settlement by disparaging MindShare in emails to clients.
In 2007 the Supreme Court imposed restraining orders on him which were later confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
But Eckett took to his keyboard again last year, emailing four of MindShare's major clients in violation of the orders.
Justice Tamberlin rejected Eckett's claims of being ''a whistleblower'', saying the emails - sent ''in clear and direct defiance'' of the court orders - were calculated to damage the company and deter it from pursuing further legal action against him.
Eckett pleaded guilty to contempt of court.
The fact that he lives in Taiwan limited the sentencing options, but the court has a broad discretion when it comes to punishing contempt.
Counsel for Mindshare, Alec Leopold, SC, proposed a penalty that would drive home to Eckett the seriousness of his ''contumacious and flagrant'' conduct: make him write an essay on the error of his ways.
Justice Tamberlin, who suspended half the fine, said the court could mould its orders to meet a particular case and bonds ''should relate to the character of the breach, including deterrence and rehabilitation''.
''Because these contempts expressly defy the authority of the court … I consider it appropriate to impose a requirement that the defendant should personally write out in his own hand and provide to the court an essay,'' he said.
The essay is due by January 31.