Defense counsel for Mr Alan Shadrake, Mr M Ravi, said in his conclusion that the contempt of court proceedings were “a sure wastage of the Court’s resources” and “entirely contemptuous”.
Mr Ravi was speaking on Tuesday in defence of the statements isolated by the Attorney-General’s Chambers from Mr Shadrake’s book ‘Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock’.
Picking up from yesterday’s session, Mr Ravi addressed statements 7 to 14 highlighted in the prosecution’s submissions. He argued that none of them were aimed at undermining the Singapore judiciary, but could be taken as fair criticism.
Statements 7 and 8 were concerned with the alleged preferential treatment given to the rich, while statements 9 to 11 pertained to the alleged miscarriage of justice in the case of Vignes Mourthi. Statements 12 to 14 also allegedly insinuated that the Singapore judiciary is a tool of the People’s Action Party (PAP) to suppress political dissent.
Mr Ravi argued that Mr Shadrake’s comments could be construed as fair criticism, as he was just representing the views of an average member of public. “An average man’s perspective must be taken into account here,” he said.
Since the courts take an individual’s contribution to society as a mitigating factor in sentencing, this gives the public “reasonable apprehension” to make the fair criticism that the rich would be more likely to receive lighter sentences, said Mr Ravi in response to the DPP’s written submissions on statements 7 and 8.
The fact that the wealthy generally have access to better legal counsels than the poor also provides his client with evidence to make the fair comment that the rich are more likely to receive lighter sentences than the poor in such cases, he said.
However, after consultation with his client, he conceded that Mr Shadrake had made a mistake in implying that Dinesh Singh Bhatia, who was arrested for consuming cocaine, would have been sentenced to 10 years in prison as well as a heavy fine if he had not been of a certain social status.
This was in response to DPP Hema Subramaniam’s assertion the day before that in Singapore law, first-time offenders like Bhatia would not receive the maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
Mr Ravi said that Mr Shadrake was willing to withdraw the sentence, and would also tell his publisher to remove it from future publications of the book. However, Mr Shadrake still maintains that his comment that Bhatia was able to access better legal counsel than those less privileged than him was a fair one.
In addressing statements 9 to 11, Mr Ravi argued that there is a circulation of prosecutors and judges in the Singapore courts. In fact, current Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was a judge in the Supreme Court in 1988, before becoming Attorney-General in 1992 and finally Chief Justice in 2006.
This, Mr Ravi said, was an example of the “highly porous nature” of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the judiciary, which led his client to fairly comment that the “higher echelons of the judiciary” knew about the investigation of corruption and sodomy charges against Sergeant Rajkumar.
Sergeant Rajkumar was the arresting officer and key witness in the trial of Vignes Mourthi, who was hung in 2003. The investigation of Sergeant Rajkumar had not been made known until after the execution of Mourthi.
Mr Ravi backed this claim up by referring to the transcripts of an interview Mr Shadrake conducted with top criminal lawyer Mr Subhas Anandan. In the interview, Mr Anandan indicated that during Vignes Mourthi’s trial, the prosecution “must have known” about the ongoing investigation of Sergeant Rajkumar.
Other lawyers have also commented on the alleged miscarriage of justice in the Vignes Mourthi case, Mr Ravi said. In August 2010, Lawyers For Liberty, a human rights and law reform initiative in Malaysia, submitted a protest memorandum to the Singapore High Commission calling for the Singapore government to acknowledge that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
Mr Ravi urged the Singapore state to hold a Commission of Inquiry to look into the allegations. “The matured response should not be contempt of court proceedings but a Commission of Inquiry,” he said. “The whole country failed when we allowed a miscarriage of justice to take place.”
With regards to the prosecution’s submissions on statements 12 to 14, Mr Ravi cited reports made by the Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) and the International Commission of Jurists to back up the International Bar Association report Mr Shadrake had quoted in his book.
The reports, Mr Ravi asserts, are sufficient proof to provide his client with the grounds to make a fair criticism on the lack of independence of the Singapore judiciary.
Similarly, Mr Ravi submitted that the fact that the Prime Minister is “significantly involved in the appointment of judges”, and that judges do not have tenure after the age of 65, presents Mr Shadrake – as well as members of the public – with the “reasonable apprehension” to comment on the lack of an independent judiciary in Singapore.
In conclusion, Mr Ravi stated that the Singapore judiciary “ranks at the apex of global opinon”, and therefore should not be afraid of criticism.
He also maintained that the Singapore public is “well-educated, sophisticated and mature”, with access to sources from the Internet, international media as well as social media, and are therefore used to criticism of the system and its leaders.
He pointed out that despite the prosecution’s assertion that his client had scandalised the judiciary, no attempt had been made to lodge a complaint against Mr Shadrake until he entered the country. The book has also not been banned in Singapore by the Media Development Authority (MDA).
“If the book is so bad that the State should forewarn that it undermines public confidence in the judiciary, they should gazette and ban the book,” Mr Ravi said. However, since no such action has been taken, the contempt of court proceedings are “totally unnecessary”.
With approximately 6000 copies of the book already sold, Mr Ravi said that it is clear that there is no risk of the judiciary being undermined. In fact, he asserted that the contempt of court proceedings “may itself be a factor that weakens the judiciary of Singapore”.
The hearing continues Wednesday morning. DPP Hema Subramaniam will give her response to the submissions made by Mr Ravi.
To find out more about the Vignes Mourthi case, click on the links below-
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/alan-shadrake%E2%80%99s-crime/
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/new-book-puts-death-penalty-on-trial/
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/08/i-want-my-sons-name-back/
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Thank you Ravi. I think your arguments seem very logical. I hope there are logical people around.
As good as Ravi can be in his logical and detailed articulation, the system that has been created by MM LKY and his “Pro Alien Party” – can easily turn ‘logic’ on its own head.
It is almost UNTHINKABLE for MM LKY to allow any semblance of his authority to be undermined by any Singapore Judge, who is prepared to allow M.Ravi and Alan Shadrake to be absolved of any misdemeanour arising from the diligent work put up by Alan that had embarrassed the Singapore Judiciary in such a glaring way.
Any absolution given to Alan Shadrake will feed on the paranoiac fears of the incumbent, which will include the nightmares arising from the growing confidence and outspokeness of ordinary Singaporeans – who will be empowered to be even bolder and vocally louder to assert themselves against the “Pro Alien Party”.
In this period of “The Age of the UNTHINKABLE” [1] – Singaporeans must learn to stop being a spectator and allow events to overwhelm us, but should instead make the unthinkable efforts to control the historical outcomes that will affect our lives.
*
*
*
[1] ‘The Age of the UNTHINKABLE’
http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/features/unthinkable/index.html
Thanks to Mr.Ravi to guide a better Singapore future.
Ravi is spot on; the whole affair is “entirely contemptuous” and is producing the exact reaction which the AG claims to book did. What the AG does not realize is that any judiciary is judged on its judgments and not by the actions taken to please the political masters. Even in Pakistan & India, judges have proved the independence & integrity of the courts by delivering verdicts which is deemed fair by the public. Can our judiciary claim the same; go ask the public if you dare. Chee’s Tak Boleh Tahan verdict just proved that. The public does not care too much about the interpretation of law or constitution but Case can do but SDP cannot. Do judgments like that prove that the judiciary is independent? Well judges know too well that how to deliver judgments which will secure them promotions. They do not worry about independence, honour and integrity as the AG is busy taking actions against anyone who dare point out the facts. Well securing the integrity of his position now rest with the judge. His judgment will prove his independence just like the judge in Chee’s case proved.
Talk to senior lawyers, I am sure some of you have friends, and they will tell you the situation of the judiciary in Singapore, it’s been like that for years. You would not be too surprised. Bottom line, we are the laughing stock on the world stage. I’m most ashamed these days to speak to foreigners, its no wonder we cannot move and remain on the higher levels of existence. The goals post keeps changing.
The reason for the book not being ban is simple.The author being foreign has the liberty to write as he deems fit.
Stepping into Singapore and promoting it is his folly as it allows the Govt. to take the necessary action on HOME GROUND.
Remember Gopalan?returning to Singapore as an American he so proudly announced thinking he is untouchable?well that is another folly,Singapore is PAP HOME GROUND.
Its best you damn PAP or write whatever you want outside Singapore but be prepared for the WORSE when you step into HALLOWED GROUNDS a MANS’s HOME is his Castle Period
Yes, the very rich and powerful get lighter sentences is a fact that the DPP and courtst cannot deny
”The book has also not been banned in Singapore by the Media Development Authority (MDA).”
BUT NO BOOK SHOP IN SINGAPORE SELLING THE BOOK LEI.
M Ravi kicks ass!
RAVI you have brought issues where many locals are asking carry on with your arguements u have my our support
This case is a classic in The Laws of Natural Justice:
A Singapore Judge is asked to be fair and just on the issue of whether the writer was in contempt for saying that singapore judges are unfair and unjust.
M Ravi should argue that the whole bench is incapable of judging a case of this nature due to a breach of principles of natural justice. the whole proceeding is illegal and should be declared a mistrial.
parliament shall then pass an act to appoint an out of jurisdiction judge from the Privy council of England to empower them with jurisdiction in this one particular case.
nemo iudex in causa sua
A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He or she therefore cannot be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the Latin maxim, nemo iudex in causa sua: “no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause”.
googoobird, super! we need more people like you to speak out.