SINGAPORE — Addressing the Chief Justice via Zoom video conference, human rights lawyer, M Ravi voiced his disappointment over the treatment he has received over the years as a lawyer in Singapore. He said to the Chief Justice, “I don’t feel that I belong to an honourable profession anymore.”
The virtual hearing was fixed before the Court of Three Judges (CTJ) last Wednesday (9 Nov) over an appeal filed by the Law Society of Singapore (LSS) against the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) — convened to hear on the 3 of the 4 charges brought against M. Ravi which were released in December last year.
While the DT dismissed the first charge against Mr Ravi, it found the second, third and fourth charges were all made out.
However, the DT took the view that his conduct was not serious enough to warrant disciplinary action by referring him to CTJ under Section 83 of the Legal Profession Act (LPA).
It, therefore, recommended that Mr Ravi should instead be ordered to pay a penalty of a collective sum of $4,000 for the second and fourth charges and $2,000 for the third — a total sum of $6,000. Mr Ravi did not appeal against the judgment by the DT.
Misconduct Serious Enough To Warrant Sanctions, Says LSS
LSS in its appeal, argued that Mr Ravi’s misconduct in relation to the three charges is sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of sanctions under Section 83(1) of the LPA.
Appearing before the CTJ — the highest disciplinary body that deals with lawyers’ misconduct, Ms Wendy Lin from Wong Partnership who was representing LSS as counsel, said that what Mr Ravi did, amounted to serious misconduct by an advocate and solicitor.
She argued that Mr Ravi had undermined the judicial system and the Law Society and warrants punishment of suspension of practice. The LSS disagreed with the findings of its own Disciplinary Tribunal.
While Ms Lin initially urged the court to impose a three months suspension order, she agreed that the appropriate sentence should be 15 months upon CJ Menon’s query on whether she was aware of the case of Zero Nalpon who was suspended for 15 months for his Facebook posts.
In April this year, Mr Naplon was found guilty of sub judice by alleging in a public Facebook group that a district judge plagiarised submissions by the prosecution.
LSS Failed Its Duty Towards Lawyers In Singapore, Says Mr Ravi
In his defence against the LSS’ claims against him, Mr Ravi said to the court, “I did not come to the legal profession to make big bucks, to join big firms, and conduct international arbitration to become rich. I only came with one mission which is to advance rule of law without fear or favour.”
Mr Ravi admonished the Law Society by telling the CJ that “LSS has failed in its duty to uphold the independence of the profession ( Bar) and failed in its mission statement to advance the rule of law”
In support of his criticism of the LSS above, Mr Ravi pointed out that the LSS not only has the power to prosecute lawyers, but also the statutory duty to protect the rights of lawyers in Singapore which he said it has failed to do so.
Noting that the Law Society had not rendered any assistance to him when the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) made threatening statements against him at a Pre Trial Conference( PTC) during the Gobi and Datchinamoorthy’s case in February 2020.
During that PTC DPP Wong told the court that the government of Singapore was reserving all its rights against Mr M. Ravi personally ( Reservation Statement ). On this “ threatening “statement”, the Court of Appeal previously ruled in Gobi and Datchinamoorthy’s appeal that the Reservation Statement made by DPP Wong Koon Wong on behalf of the government of Singapore could be construed as reasonably intimidating.
Mr Ravi referred to this ruling and said that Law Society has failed to protect its members by keeping silent even after the ruling by the Court and instead persecuted Mr Ravi by bringing more actions against him when AG filed more complaints against him and continued its persecution by bringing this appeal to the Court of Three Judges when its own DT ruled in favour of him.
The incidents which led to the four charges faced by Mr Ravi are linked to statements made by Mr Ravi after the Court of Appeal in a historic judgement set aside Gobi Avedian’s death sentence on the basis that it was a miscarriage of justice and admitted that its previous decision was erroneous. This is the first death penalty case in Singapore to be successfully reopened and a death sentence set aside after a concluded appeal where all avenues have been closed.
Gobi had earlier filed an application for criminal review in the light of the Court of Appeal decision in Adili Chubuike Ejike’s case.
In Adil’s case, the Court of Appeal made a new interpretation of section 18(1) that the prosecution cannot run an inconsistent case of actual knowledge of possession of drugs and willful blindness as an alternative ground if it failed to prove actual knowledge.
This inconsistency happened in Gobi’s case under section 18(2) of the MDA where the prosecution ran an inconsistent case of actual knowledge and wilful blindness
Gobi succeeded in the review before the Court of Appeal and he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane, the original sentence passed by the trial judge.
In an interview with TOC and in further correspondence with AGC, Mr Ravi made several allegations against the AG, Deputy AG and/or the Prosecutor claiming that they were wrongdoers and that the family of Gobi had given him instructions to commence proceedings against them.
Following the interview, AGC sent a letter to Mr Ravi demanding that he retract his allegations.
Instead of removing the post, Mr Ravi published the letter on his Facebook page.
Mr Ravi had also sent letters to the Law Society and the AG, Deputy AG and members of the prosecution team threatening proceedings against both the LSS for failing its duty to protect its members and the AG for allegedly failing in its duties to protect Gobi from being wrongfully executed.
In urging the court to impose a suspension sentence on Mr Ravi, Ms Lin said that Mr Ravi was not remorseful for what he has done.
Arguing that Mr Ravi had posted all correspondence on his Facebook page with over 32,000 followers with the intention of galvanising public opinion and exerting pressure on the AGC.
She also informed the court that Mr Ravi had several antecedents and deserves to be suspended for 15 months.
Mr Ravi who argued his own case said that his actions were the result of the tremendous pressure he faced from the AG and that he had acted out of impulse. He also said that his retaliatory statements were fair criticisms.
He told the court that galvanising public opinion was part and parcel of “cause lawyering” and he had to rely on his social media for campaigning purposes. Since the AGC and the state have the state media at their disposal, the AGC shouldn’t be pressured by his Facebook followers.
Court Of Appeal Failed Its Duties When It Did Not Review Cases After New Development In Law, Says M Ravi
Ravi then directed his criticism at the Court of Appeal in its handling of Gobi’s case.
To this, Mr Ravi said that — upon the Court of Appeal departing on its own previous interpretation of Section 18(1) of MDA in Adili’s case, it should have exercised its inherent powers and reviewed all death row cases of its own volition so as to ensure that prisoners like Gobi would be spared from the gallows.
Given the failure of the Chief Justice and the Court of appeal judges in not taking proactive steps to review the cases, he had to file a criminal motion for Gobi that in fact led to a review of other similar cases that turned on the meaning of wilful blindness.
Had it not been for his application, Gobi would have been hanged, said Mr Ravi and pointed this as a failure of the criminal justice system in calling for Judicial Reforms.
He said that in other countries, there would have been a review of the justice system immediately when is a serious miscarriage of justice in a death penalty case.
To this extent, Mr Ravi argues that the Chief Justice and the Court of appeal had abdicated their judicial responsibilities to review Gobi’s case on their own motion and review the records by virtue of the poses given to them under section 394J (1)(b) which came into effect in 2018.
Mr Ravi then questioned the Chief Justice on how he could go about filing a complaint against the judge in view of his complaint of the judge and the Court of Appeal in failing in its duties which would have resulted in a wrongful death, had he not come into the picture.
There is no proper judicial complaints mechanism in Singapore, said Mr Ravi.
Mr Ravi went further and pointed at the Attorney General, who he said, should have applied for a review of all cases under both section 18(1) and Section 18(2) since the conclusion of Adili’s case.
While CJ Menon disagreed with Mr Ravi’s suggestion that both the court and the Law Society have been stripped of their powers, Mr Ravi argued back with the fact that a DT has to be appointed when the AG makes a complaint.
Mr Ravi argued that both the Law Society and the CJ are powerless where they cannot consider the merits of the complaint even if the complaint by AG is frivolous and are compelled by the law to allow the complaint to go straight to the DT.
Mr Ravi also asked those present at the hearing if anyone would like to walk in his shoes to find out how difficult it was for him handing all the death penalty and human rights cases in Singapore for almost 20 years at a huge personal cost.
After a short adjournment, the court informed the parties that judgement is reserved.
