‘Irrational, offensive’ blogger jailed for six months without internet access

Self-proclaimed anti-corruption activist and blogger Michael Hampton has been sentenced to six months in prison without access to the internet.

This after the high court in Cape Town found him in contempt of court.

Judge Elize Steyn also ordered Hampton to take his gadgets to the sheriff of the court for information pertaining to former Knysna deputy mayor Esmé Edge and her wife, Julie Anne Seton, to be deleted.

It is evident that Hampton is not susceptible to guidance or advice, or court orders.

—  Judge Elize Steyn

“The respondent, Michael Hampton, is ordered to present himself to the nearest sheriff of the high court within 72 hours after this order has been granted, with all his laptops or computers or electronic media. The sheriff of the high court is ordered to attend to the removal of all defamatory material pertaining to [Edge and Seton], including all pictures of [them] and all personal information of them from all forms of media,” Steyn ruled.

Should Hampton not comply, Steyn ordered police to arrest him, seize his gadgets and have the information deleted by the sheriff at his cost.

He has signalled an intention to appeal the verdict.

The judgment was handed down in September.

“Respondent Michael Hampton is sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without access to the internet or any electronic media,” the judgment reads.

“The South African police is authorised and directed to give effect to the arrest and incarceration of Michael Hampton in accordance with the terms of this order. Respondent, Michael Hampton, is specifically interdicted from again publishing, posting, blogging or commenting on any social media, website or internet, or in any way disseminating any pictures of ... Seton and Edge, defamatory statements concerning [them] and [their] personal information ...”

Hampton was also slapped with a costs order.

The protracted legal battle dates back to 2014, when Edge sought an interdict prohibiting Hampton from “publishing on social media, or any internet site or in any other way, pictures of her, personal information relating to her and defamatory statements about her”.

The court granted the order in 2015.

“At that time, the dispute between the parties already had a long history, commencing in about July 2011, when Edge was a councillor serving on the Knysna Tourism Board,” Steyn’s judgment reads. “Later she was a DA councillor for Knysna and Knysna deputy mayor.”

Hampton’s admitted attacks on Edge and Seton comprised slurs on their reputations on social media.

“Hampton admits that he has written articles and blogs about Seton and Edge since 2011. His irrational, offensive, accusatory behaviour continued in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Edge and Seton vehemently deny Hampton’s unsubstantiated allegations, attacking them.”

In 2015, the high court interdicted Hampton from publishing personal information relating to Edge and he was found to be in contempt of a 2014 court order.

Hampton said he was “obliged” to “expose corruption of politicians to the public, and that Edge could not claim privacy as she was a public figure and could not prohibit publication of her personal information”.

“He claimed a right of expression, not acknowledging that there is a limit to expressing personal views, he insisted he was presenting true facts to the public, ‘in seeking justice for Knysna’.”

He was sentenced to 60 days behind bars, which were conditionally suspended for three years. Hampton was unsuccessful in his bid to have the order rescinded.

“I am unsure if Hampton effectively complied with this order for the period of suspension, considering further allegations and litigation, he may have been more discreet,” Steyn said.

“He now mistakenly appears to believe he is no longer bound by the terms of the 7 July 2015 order that he has been disregarding for years.”

Seton obtained a protection order against Hampton in September 2016. It prohibited him from “disseminating personal information about them. He was prohibited from making defamatory comments relating to them and was ordered to cease cyberstalking them.”

In her judgment, Steyn said Hampton provided her with irrelevant information in an attempt to bolster his recession application.

“Hampton ... sent reams of emailed correspondence and documents, with monotonous regularity, to my chambers when he was informed that the matter had been allocated,” the judgment reads.

“More than 130 pages arrived shortly before the hearing. Much of the documentation was irrelevant, repetitive, argumentative and garbled, belligerent and derogatory. Hampton’s inappropriate conduct, perceived attempts to influence the court, or to conduct the hearing through correspondence, continued after he was advised that further correspondence would not be entertained.”

Steyn said Hampton told her “complaints had been laid about [her] and the judge president”.

“I was accused of, inter alia, being irresponsible to order that the matter would be conducted in court, despite Hampton’s previous insistence on an open court hearing,” the judgment reads.

“On 2 June 2021, Hampton complained in his emailed correspondence about three of my colleagues, and 10 years of failure by the ‘justice system’, referring to the ‘rot in the legal profession’. He repeatedly accused others, including the ‘lower court’, [of] blatantly assisting the Democratic Alliance ... that he accused of corruption.

“He questions that he will receive a fair trial and if he will be imprisoned for exposing corruption and standing up for his fellow citizens. Various judges were referred to in less than complimentary fashion. He repeatedly referred, without substantiation, to corruption that he intends to demonstrate. The contents of the emails were mainly scurrilous and outrageous.”

Steyn said it “emerged that Hampton had cyber-stalked” her.

“He referred to details of my private life and even my husband’s ancestors, where he made inaccurate assumptions,” Steyn said in the judgment.

“It is evident that Hampton, who asked for the court’s guidance more than once, is not susceptible to guidance or advice, or court orders.

“Regardless of exasperation, I attended to the matter with an open mind, aware that Hampton was conducting his case, not having been able, despite many attempts over years, to obtain legal assistance.  

“Judges are obliged to act independently and impartially, without fear, favour or prejudice. The public should have confidence in the judicial system, which should function efficiently and effectively to advance and protect the rule of law. Hampton was not allowed to interfere with functioning of the court through continued inappropriate conduct before or after the hearing of the matter.”

Hampton’s lawyer, Richard Spoor, said: “I have noted an appeal against the decision of Judge Steyn, who sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment for contempt of court.”

Edge said: “Hampton has filed a notice for leave to appeal which we will oppose.”