AG v Shadrake Alan
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Quentin Loh J |
Judgment Date | 03 November 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 327 |
Published date | 22 November 2010 |
Date | 03 November 2010 |
Year | 2010 |
Hearing Date | 19 October 2010,20 October 2010,18 October 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Hema Subramanian, Low Siew Ling and Lim Sai Nei (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 327 |
Defendant Counsel | M Ravi (L F Violet Netto) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 720 of 2010 |
This is an application by the Attorney-General to commit Mr Alan Shadrake, the author of
The contempt being alleged here is the contempt of scandalising the court. The law in Singapore on this issue can be mainly found in nine reported decisions of the High Court spanning from September 1967 to February 2009:
Counsel vigorously disputed the appropriate test to be applied in deciding whether the statements complained of have scandalised the court.
Ms Subramanian for the Attorney-General submitted that the “inherent tendency” test has been affirmed and settled by these decisions, which I should follow. In this regard she cited
It is therefore necessary, in light of Mr Ravi’s arguments for changing the test and the law, for me to consider the Singapore cases, the decisions from other jurisdictions cited to me by Mr Ravi, as well as the substantive reasons for and against departing from the present position. However, I must bear in mind that the decisions of my learned colleagues and predecessors over the past four decades are entitled to the very greatest respect and unless there are compelling reasons to do so, I should not depart from them.
The rationale for the law and its relation with the freedom of speechIt is appropriate to begin the discussion by recalling the rationale underlying the contempt of scandalising the court, a rationale which is often stated but still bears repetition. In Wilmot J’s draft judgment in
The arraignment of the justice of the Judges, is arraigning the King’s justice; it is an impeachment of his wisdom and goodness in the choice of his Judges, arid excites in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations, and indisposes their minds to obey them; and whenever men’s allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of justice, and, in my opinion, calls out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction whatsoever; not for the sake of the Judges, as private individuals, but because they are the channels by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people.
To be impartial, and to be universally thought so, are both absolutely necessary for the giving justice that free, open, and uninterrupted current, which it has, for many ages, found all over this kingdom ...[Emphasis added]
The importance of public confidence in the administration of justice, emphasised in Wilmot J’s eighteenth century opinion, has continued to receive judicial affirmation across common law jurisdictions in modern times. Lord Diplock declared in
And at 309, that:... in any civilised society it is a function of government to maintain courts of law to which its citizens can have access for the impartial decision of disputes as to their legal rights and obligations towards one another individually and towards the state as representing society as a whole. The provision of such a system for the administration of justice by courts of law and
the maintenance of public confidence in it, are essential if citizens are to live together in peaceful association with one another . "Contempt of court" is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes. Contempt of court may thus take many forms.[Emphasis added]
The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as to their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of that court to decide it according to law.
Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these three requirements or to undermine the public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court .[Original emphases removed; emphasis added)
In
The justification for this branch of the law of contempt [
ie scandalising the court] is thatit is contrary to the public interest that the public confidence in the administration of justice should be undermined .[Emphasis added]
In
The authority of the law rests on public confidence, and it is important to the stability of society that the confidence of the public should not be shaken by baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of courts or judges . However, in many cases, the good sense of the community will be a sufficient safeguard against the scandalous disparagement of a court or judge, and the summary remedy of fine or imprisonment “is applied only where the Court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the ordered and fearless administration of justice and where the attacks are unwarrantable”:R. v. Fletcher; Ex parte Kisch , per Evatt J.[Emphasis added]
In
A civilised community cannot survive without effective machinery for the enforcement of its laws. The task of enforcing those laws falls on the courts, and on the judges who...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shadrake Alan v AG
...of the court): Introduction This is an appeal against the decisions of the trial judge (“the Judge”) in Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan [2011] 2 SLR 445 (“Shadrake 1”) and Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan [2011] 2 SLR 506 (“Shadrake 2”). In Shadrake 1, the Judge found Mr Alan Shadrake (“th......
-
Actis Excalibur Ltd v KS Distribution Pte Ltd and others
...this proposition was articulated only in the context of decisions made by High Court Judges (see, eg, Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan [2010] SGHC 327 at [4], cited in Chan Yat Chin at [11]). Nothing in the case authorities cited in Chan Yat Chin at [11] dealt specifically with the proper t......
-
Peter Low LLC v Higgins, Danial Patrick
...in land. Approach towards conflicting decisions of the High Court In his submissions, Dr Tang cited Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan [2011] 2 SLR 445 (“Shadrake”) at [4] for the proposition that horizontal stare decisis does not prevail in Singapore and that, consequently, I am not bound by......
-
AG v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan
...In this regard, I find it helpful to consider Quentin Loh J’s views in the first instance decision of Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan [2011] 2 SLR 445 (“Shadrake Alan (HC)”) on the question of “real risk” at common law, and the Court of Appeal’s comments on his views when deciding the appe......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...against a recognised exception, ‘neither can be defined in such a way that renders the other otiose’: Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan[2011] 2 SLR 445 at [57]. This is a normatively desirable approach, superior to that adopted in Chan Hiang Leng Colin (above, para 1.202) at [64], where publ......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...stipulated grounds, including that of the offence of contempt of court. Notably, the High Court in Attorney- General v Shadrake Alan [2010] SGHC 327 (‘Shadrake Alan’) explicitly departed from the previous test of ‘inherent tendency’ in cases relating to the common law offence of scandalisin......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan [2018] SGHC 222 at [51]. 206 Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan [2018] SGHC 222 at [57] and [59]. 207 [2011] 2 SLR 445. 208 Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan [2018] SGHC 222 at [57]. 209 Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan [2018] SGHC 222 at [59]. 2......