Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA |
Judgment Date | 27 May 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGCA 26 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ravi s/o Madasamy (LF Violet Netto) |
Date | 27 May 2011 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 212 of 2010 |
Hearing Date | 11 April 2011 |
Subject Matter | Contempt of Court |
Published date | 02 June 2011 |
Citation | [2011] SGCA 26 |
Defendant Counsel | David Chong Gek Sian SC and Lim Sai Nei (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Year | 2011 |
This is an appeal against the decisions of the trial judge (“the Judge”) in
The present appeal raises – in some instances for the very first time before this court – important issues relating to the law of contempt which will need to be clarified before the relevant principles are applied to the facts. Foremost amongst these issues are the fundamental ones relating to the
This case arose from an application by the Attorney-General (“the Respondent”) to commit the Appellant, the author of
In the court below, the Judge first undertook an extensive and comprehensive survey of the Singapore and Commonwealth case law on the applicable test for liability for scandalising contempt.
In the result, the Judge departed from previous decisions of the Singapore High Court with regard to the test for the
In so far as the test for
Turning to what the Judge characterised as the
Applying the law to the facts, the Judge held that three of the statements (
The Judge held that imprisonment would be the norm for the author of a publication which scandalises the court (see
Taking into account the high level of the Appellant’s culpability, including his stated intent to repeat his contempt by publishing an expanded second edition of the book; previous sentencing precedents (which were on the low end); the fact that the precise extent of the book’s circulation in Singapore was unclear; the fact that the Appellant was not a person with a credible and established reputation; and the desire to signal that the courts have no interest in stifling legitimate debate on the death penalty and other areas of the law, the Judge sentenced the Appellant to six weeks’ imprisonment (see
Further, to send a signal that those who hope to profit from controversy by scandalising the court may expect to have their profits disgorged by a stiff fine in addition to other punishment, the Judge imposed a $20,000 fine on the Appellant, with two weeks’ imprisonment in default (see
The main issues are relatively straightforward and are encompassed within the following three grounds of appeal relied upon by the Appellant:
We will proceed to deal with each of these issues
Let us now turn to consider the applicable legal principles relating to the test for liability for scandalising contempt as well as what the Judge characterised as the possible defences available.
The legal principles Introduction Although counsel for the Appellant, Mr M Ravi (“Mr Ravi”), focused on the test for liability for scandalising contempt, we will also deal with the possible defences thereto because they are (as we shall see) directly relevant to the facts of the present appeal. As already mentioned, however (at
Before proceeding to deal with the applicable legal principles with respect to liability for scandalising contempt, it would be appropriate to provide some background on the law relating to contempt.
At the most general level, it should be noted that the law relating to contempt of court operates against the broader legal canvass of the right to freedom of speech that is embodied both within Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”) as well as the common law. The issue, in the final analysis, is one of
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dhooharika v DPP
... ... 25 In Ambard v Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322 , Lord Atkin, giving the advice of the Board in another ... Shadrake v Attorney General [2011] S.G.C.A. 26 (Court of Appeal of Singapore) * ; Attorney-General v ... ...
-
Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd
...PP v Norzian bin Bintat [1995] 3 SLR (R) 105; [1995] 3 SLR 462 (refd) Seaward v Paterson [1897] 1 Ch 545 (refd) Shadrake Alan v AG [2011] 3 SLR 778 (refd) Soon Peng Yam v Maimon bte Ahmad [1995] 1 SLR (R) 279; [1996] 2 SLR 609 (refd) Young v United States ex rel Vuitton et Fils SA 481 US 78......
-
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy
...[2015] SGHC 126 (refd) PP v Gobi a/l Avedian [2017] SGHC 145 (refd) PP v Gobi a/l Avedian [2019] 1 SLR 113, CA (refd) Shadrake Alan v AG [2011] 3 SLR 778 (refd) Facts C3J/OS 2/2022 (“OS 2”) was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) for the respondent, Mr Ravi s/......
-
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General and other appeals
...The latter formulation is taken from this court’s elucidation of the common law “real risk” test in Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General [2011] 3 SLR 778 (“Shadrake Alan (CA)”) (at [36]). Mr Choo also emphasised that the platform of publication should make all the difference, given that Wham’s ......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...v Au Wai Pang noted (at [6]) that the ‘leading local authority’ on the law of scandalising contempt was Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General[2011] 3 SLR 778 (‘Shadrake’). Ang J noted (at [9]) that Singapore law viewed the offence of scandalising contempt as ‘a reasonable limit upon freedom of s......
-
RETHINKING THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT
...v Au Wai Pang[2015] 2 SLR 352; Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd[2013] 2 SLR 246; Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General[2011] 3 SLR 778; and Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan[2006] 2 SLR(R) 650. 2 Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed. 3 Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed. 4 As a last resort it could be argued that......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...with the task of self-regulation. Judicial review and contempt of court 1.22 The Court of Appeal in Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General[2011] 3 SLR 778 (Shadrake) upheld the decision of Quentin Loh J and confirmed that the test for liability for contempt of court was that of a real risk that t......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2018] 4 SLR 828 at [43]. 186 Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan [2018] SGHC 222 at [4]–[5]. 187 [2011] 3 SLR 778. 188 Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan [2018] SGHC 222 at [2]. 189 Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan [2018] SGHC 222 at [18]. 190 [2006]......