by Teo Soh Lung
The contempt of court hearing against lawyer Mr M Ravi on 10 Oct 2022 before High Court Judge Hoo Sheau Peng relates to his conduct before District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt and High Court Judge Audrey Lim.
Senior State Counsel Adrian Loo submitted that Mr Ravi had alleged bias against both judges and uttered insulting words in open court. He alleged that Mr Ravi also told District Judge Chay: “You can be removed but not the High Court”.
Responding, Mr Ravi told Justice Hoo Sheau Peng that both judges had already filed disciplinary proceedings against him, and he has been suspended from legal practice. The present proceedings by the attorney general was therefore an overkill.
He told the court that since being confirmed to have suffered a relapse of his bipolar disorder in December 2021, the Attorney General had commenced five disciplinary proceedings against him.
Throughout the months of his medical leave from December 2021 to May 2022, he was stressed out. He was not able to rest and recover from his illness. He said there were “enough ongoing proceedings against me.” Further the allegation of bias was fair comment.
Medical reports have confirmed that Mr Ravi was suffering from a relapse of his bipolar illness. Public Prosecutor Adrian Loo who was assisted by three counsel from the Attorney-General’s Chambers however argued that Mr Ravi’s mental condition was a mitigating rather than an exculpatory factor which would absolve him from the consequences of his act. This was the position held by the High Court judges in the disciplinary proceedings.
In response, Mr Ravi said that the prosecution have to prove contempt of court beyond a reasonable doubt. Mens rea is required for a conviction.
Mr Ravi told Justice Hoo that Singapore signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. He said that the prosecution had taken a clinical approach to dealing with persons with disabilities and had not produced any precedent where a person with disabilities has been charged for contempt of court. He submitted that the burden of proof on the prosecution is very high and he should be treated as a vulnerable person and that “only a sick society would kick a sick person.”
Mr Ravi also explained that when he uttered the words “You can be removed but not the High Court” to District Judge Chay, he was verbalising the structural deficiency regarding the appointment of State Court judges who, unlike High Court judges, did not have security of tenure and can be removed and sent to the Attorney-General Chambers during his term of office.
The hearing has been adjourned. Justice Hoo said there may be a pre-trial conference for further directions. The prosecution have reserved their submission on sentence should Mr Ravi be judged to be in contempt of court.
This was first published on Teo Soh Lung’s Facebook page.