by Deborah Choo/

The Court of Appeal reserved judgment on Monday after the court hearing of British author and investigative journalist Alan Shadrake who was charged for contempt of court last year for certain things in his book, Once a Jolly Hangman: Justice in the Dock.

“Overexuberance of justice can chill public debate,” lawyer of the appellant, Mr M Ravi cautioned.

In November 2010, Justice Quentin Loh found Mr Shadrake guilty of contempt for eleven out of the 14 statements that were the basis for his charge submitted by the Attorney-General Chambers. Mr Shadrake was sentenced to a six weeks imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. An appeal was then submitted by Mr Ravi on behalf of his appellant on three grounds: (1) the judge erred in his statement of the test for liability for contempt of court on the ground of scandalising the judiciary, (2) the judge erred in his interpretation of the passages held to have given rise to the contempt, and (3) the sentence set down by the judge was manifestly excessive.

Presenting his case to Justice Andrew Phang, Justice Lai Siu Chiu and Justice Philip Pillai, Mr Ravi appealed to the courts as per Justice Loh’s previous judgment of “real risk” as merely “something more than a de minimis” and does not constitute grave danger to the public.

Mr Ravi added that his client’s comments should be seen as one’s inherent right to freedom of speech and fair criticism, both of which are given in good faith and with no intent to malign Singapore’s judiciary and courts. He argued that the statements in Mr Shadrake’s book can be seen from the point of a legitimate debate. He also expressed that the Singaporean public is generally well educated and discerning enough to not allow the opinions of an author to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

However, Deputy Public Prosecutor in the Attorney-General’s Chambers David Chong argued otherwise. Mr Chong said that considering the context of which the 14 statements were made, it poses real and present danger to undermining public confidence in the judiciary. He added that any allegations of partiality and impropriety against the judiciary made by Mr Shadrake falls outside the criteria of fair criticism and therefore Mr Shadrake should be held accountable for his actions.

Countering this argument, Mr Ravi questioned why if the book is found by the authorities to be of danger to society, why the book is not banned.

Referring to Mr Shadrake’s remarks to the British newspaper The Guardian last year and his intentions to publish a second edition of the book, Mr Chong said, “It is reprehensible as the appellant maligned the entire judiciary and is not in the least remorseful but openly defiant.”

Mr Chong pointed out that the rights to freedom of expression on Singapore’s judiciary do not apply to a foreigner.

He also said that there are legitimate ways of appealing through the constitutional enquiry process when it comes to any aggrieved persons who wish to file a complaint against the biasness of a judge in a particular judgment.

Rebutting this argument, Mr Ravi said that “While England has the Judicial Complaint Committee, Singapore uniquely doesn’t. The absence of such a public mechanism results in the Singapore courts being unfavorably placed. It is by no fault of this court but that of the province of parliament.”

All three judges  also questioned the AG in the scenario where a judge’s judgment is in fact biased, what are then the rights of a third party to comment and what are his or her channels of complaint.

Advocating that the previous sentence meted out by Justice Loh was “minimal”, Mr Chong asked the courts for Mr Shadrake to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as well. However, the judges overruled this as no appeal with this regards has been submitted by the AG.

“I feel confident that our judiciary and our courts are able to withstand any criticism,” said Mr Ravi before he rested his case in court. “Singaporean citizens are not gullible. No matter how outrageous or scurrilous any criticism may be, as long as the judges conduct themselves with respect, it’ll speak for itself.”

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Sex and the seduction of money

Alex Au, aka Yawning Bread, gave this talk as part of interesThink2 in Feb 2008. Alex spoke on “the pros and pros of prostitution”.

Hwa Chong alumni express "shock" at relationship programme

A group of petitioners who say they are alumni of Hwa Chong…

Social Control with Leninism, Confucianism and Legalism

By Dr Yuen Chung Kwong – Few people would profess to be…

为何何晶的薪资形同“国家机密”?

截至3月31日,淡马锡控股的年度财政报告称一年股东回报率大幅下挫。据年度报告指出,其股东回报率仅为1.49巴仙,较去年的12巴仙有大幅度的下降。 淡马锡董事长林文兴表示,“我们持续关注各国走势如美国经济衰退、英国脱欧、欧洲各国政治分裂等情况,至于亚洲如中国并未完全重组其经济,达长期可持续性的经济目标。” “各国经济趋势对全球氛围和长期可持续增长率具有重大的影响。”他说。 淡马锡控股于去年的财政年度实施较多的撤资计划,舍弃了280亿新元的资产,同时也增持了240亿新元。 然而,最被新加坡人民关心的并不是淡马锡控股的走势,而是淡马锡首席执行长何晶谜一般的薪水。对此,你无法在报告中找到任何相关资讯。 总理李显龙弟李显扬于周三(10日)在脸书上发文表示,“淡马锡控股的年度报告昨日(9日)出炉。对于何晶的薪资仍未透露并不感到意外,不过为什么会成为如此神秘的秘密?” 人民之声党主席林鼎也于脸书上发文指出报告中的疏漏,他认为截至今日,何晶的薪资仍未被公开,这是非常“荒谬”的事情。他质问,“对此,我国的透明度和问责制到底起了什么作用?” 林鼎也回应了总理日前要求不公开何晶薪资的要求,认为该课题应该提呈国会进行辩论。 林鼎也质问,“我国的主权财富基金(亦指淡马锡控股)的总裁和所有高层其薪资难道不能向股东,也就是新加坡公民公开并进行审议?” 早在五月份,我们在一篇文章中指出,根据新加坡公司法,淡马锡是一家获得豁免权的私人公司,意味着公司不需要提供任何经法定审议的综合财务报表,淡马锡控股甚至在官方网站上贴出说明。 因此,他们是无任何义务告诉我们关于首席执行长何晶的薪资。 尽管淡马锡一直拒绝透露首席执行长的薪酬,但仍然可从中分析出一些端倪。部落客Phillip…