The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has filed a complaint against human rights lawyer M Ravi for releasing court documents to the media with respect to three cases.
In a letter sent to the Law Society, the AGC requested the Law Society to refer the matter to a disciplinary tribunal, pursuant to section 85(3)(b) of the Legal Professions Act.
In an open letter to the media, Mr Ravi’s office indicated that he will “vigorously defend his position both locally and internationally. He will inform the media of his impending actions shortly after his trip to Malaysia to campaign for Cheong Chun Yin and his trip to India on the Little India Riots case”.
The media release from Mr Ravi’s office also attached the letter from the AGC to the Law Society, detailing the various aspects where Mr Ravi was deemed to have been involved in the release of the information and why his actions were in contravention of the Legal Professions Act.
In the complaint, the AGC cited the following cases:
– The constitutional challenges (Lawrence Wee’s Article 12 challenge to include prohibition against discrimination on grounds of sexuality)
– Judicial Review Applications (Little India Riots Case and the application filed by Malaysian National Cheong Chun Yin facing execution who is challenging the AG’s decision on not granting the Certificate of Cooperation)
– Court actions ( Death of inmate Dinesh Raman who died while in custody).
The AGC claimed in the letter of complaint that Mr Ravi acted “in a manner unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court by causing Court documents to be prematurely released to the media”, and that he made statements “to the media which contravened” parts of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
The AGC’s letter held that the principles of open justice requires that decisions by judges and court proceedings be made available for inspection by the public. However, “it does not mean that all documents are open to inspection by members of the public the moment they are filed in court, for the principle of open justice is engaged only when a court has made a decision involving a consideration of those documents.”
In up to four separate cases before the courts, and alleging that Mr Ravi was directly involved in the dissemination of the documents to the media, the AGC opined that Mr Ravi’s premature release of these court documents was deliberately done “to gain unfair advantage in the cases, and/or to interfere in the conduct of fair proceedings by prejudicing the respondent’s case in the minds of members of the public, and/or to hold up the persons and institutions referred to in the affidavits to public obloquy.”

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

Investigations on alleged neglect in nursing home stalled for over 2 years, family wants justice

Davis Ks Ong, a local citizen had shared in a Facebook post…

推着电动滑板车走半小时 送餐员示范禁令后“正确送餐方式”

电动滑板车禁令颁布后,靠有关代步工具工作的送餐员生计大受影响。一名送餐员示范正确的送餐方式,就录制了一段视频,行走了半个小时才成功将饮料送达目的地。 一名GrabFood送餐员将自己的送餐行程,于11月11日上载到优管(Youtube)的Guide to GrabFood频道上。 在视频开端就提到目前的条规,包括在行人道上行驶将被罚款2000元、草坪上行驶罚款5000元、在沟渠盖上行驶则罚款四万元,但是他的银行户头内只有300元等,随后就开始其送餐行程。 他到淡滨尼中5路的世纪广场(Century Square)一家奶茶店,领取了顾客所点的饮料后,就朝向目的地,即淡滨尼42街第458座组屋前进。 基于所走的路线都没有公共连接道,所以这名送餐员唯有推着电板车,在人行道上行走。“如你们所见,我现在在人行道上,所以只能推着电动滑板车。这是“最合法”的送餐方式。” 一路上,他一边推着电板车,一边阅读网友们的评语。 网友的评语有赞有弹,也有提醒不能违规的事项。而他一边行走时,也分享了有关政府和送餐服务商,推出700万元以旧换新援助计划的看法。 “我真的觉得很值得,因为是提供给在职的送餐员,有1000元,而要换成脚车的也能领取600元,我觉得有多了,很不错。” 此外,他也提到自己是幸运的,因为身体健康,所以行走送订单并不是问题,但是对其他面对某些状况的送餐员而言,可能就做不到了。“一些送餐员是残缺人士、或者身体抱恙,需要电板车帮助送餐;有的则是因为教育水平不足,无法找到更好的工作,需要这份工作来支撑生活。”…

LTA calls for tender to operate bicycle-sharing scheme at Jurong Lake District

Land Transport Authority (LTA) said in a media release on Thursday (28…