Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 472 [2021] 2 MLRA public controversy. Still less into political. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.” [146] After weighing the submissions and hearing the oral submissions made before this court, we find the charge for facilitating the publication of the impugned comments against the 1st respondent had been proved, hence we find the 1st respondent guilty of contempt of court. The 2nd respondent in our view, cannot be held guilty for facilitating the publication of the impugned comments. The application by the AG against the 2nd respondent is dismissed. We then invite parties to submit on sentence. Sentence [147] Learned counsel for the respondents urged upon us to consider the apology extended on behalf of the 1st respondent by its Director. The apology was extended in his affidavit in encl 57 at para 21. The respondents’ counsel explained that despite apologising, the respondents wanted to continue with the hearing in order for this court to set out the law in this area. Again in the open court after this court made a finding of guilt against the 1st respondent, Mr Anand tendered his apology in the open court on behalf of the 1st respondent. It was further urged upon us to also give due regards to the cooperation extended by the respondents both to the police and to the court. Learned counsel suggested a fine of RM30,000.00 would therefore suffice. Learned Senior Federal Counsel then submitted that a fine of RM200,000.00 would be appropriate. [148] Sentencing is always a prerogative of court to be exercised upon settled principles. In meting out an appropriate sentence the court is bound to consider the general principles involved which may be categorised as the extent and seriousness of the offence committed, the guilty person’s antecedent conduct and the public interest factor. [149] In sentencing for contempt cases, it falls back to the facts and context of each case. The Singapore case of Shadrake Alan v. Attorney General [2011] SGCA 26 merits attention. There, the Court of Appeal of Singapore outlined factors to be considered in the context of contempt proceedings, which include the culpability of the contemnor, the nature and gravity of the contempt, the seriousness of the occasion on which the contempt was committed, the type and extent of dissemination of the contemptuous statements and the importance of dettering would-be contemnors from following suit. The Court of Appeal also put emphasis that those categories of guidelines or factors would not be closed but depend on the facts and context concerned. [150] We then re-examine the impugned comments once again. The comments as we see it are simply scurrilous and irreprehensible. The unwarranted attack are incendiary which expose the Judiciary to embarrassment, public scandal, contempt and to the point of belittling the Judiciary. Not only that, it had tarnished the Judiciary as being guilty of corrupt activity and had compromised