Tensions arose midway through this morning’s proceedings on the Alan Shadrake case when defense counsel M Ravi made an application for Deputy Public Prosecutor Hema Subramanian to withdraw a statement.
At issue was the following portion of Ms Subramanian’s submissions:
“The suggestion of his [Mr Ravi’s] submissions seems to be that the present and past contempt cases were brought because the AG is “overly sensitive” and “thin-skinned” and not because the statements in question were actually contemptuous. Embedded in these submissions is the suggestion that the Judges who heard the earlier contempt proceedings and found contempt were only “rubber stamping” the AG’s application and not because on the laws and facts, there was actually contempt.”
Mr Ravi, responded that these were serious allegations and a serious imputation on his character.
“What a scandalous allegation is that,” he told Justice Quentin Loh. “She is saying I should be held in contempt of court.”
Ms Subramanian then stood up to rebut Mr Ravi but was told by the Judge that two people should not be speaking at the same time. She then sat down.
Mr Ravi requested a withdrawal of Ms Subramaniam’s statements.
Justice Loh did not address the request, saying that no charges were being filed against Mr Ravi at the current moment.
Mr Ravi said that the Attorney-General’s Chambers had sufficient opportunity to object to any part of his oral submissions yesterday during the hearing, but had instead chosen to level this accusation today.
Mr Ravi also noted that the Attorney-General’s statements were a threat that could compromise his conduct of his case. He then stated that if contempt proceedings were proffered against him, he would have to discharge himself from the case as he would be in a position of conflict.
Justice Quentin Loh then gave the assurance that if the Attorney General were to press charges against Mr Ravi because of the current proceedings, they would be heard before him and he would be given a fair hearing.
Mr Ravi expressed his confidence in the impartiality of Justice Loh, and said that given this assurance he would continue to conduct Mr Shadrake’s defence.
The hearing continues this afternoon.
TOC has obtained the following response from Mr Ravi. We publish it in full below.
“The Attorney-General’s Chambers has opportunistically used the cover of court proceedings to threaten me with future contempt proceedings.
This is a grave threat against members of the Singapore Bar whose duty it is to fearlessly and zealously canvass their clients’ cases.
To the extent that they impute I have scandalized the judiciary by submission on my client’s behalf, I will be taking legal advice and follow-up action.”
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
The Wayang continue,one possibly to seek attention for political mileage and the other for possible promotion.
Good luck to both with Mr.Shadrake caught in between.
Mr. A Shadrake please be reminded that this is Singapore and not the EU or the USA.Do your thing like most western journalists i.e outside Singapore,coming into the LION’s DEN is “backside itchy” unless you are prepared to face the wrath of the LION’s Roar with the book thrown at you.
Lawyer M. Ravi is doing a fantastic job. he could rise to be one of our top criminal lawyers in time to come.
the veiled threat from DPP was a most underhanded blow. i doubt DPP would pull a stunt like this if she were in private practice.
Don’t understand what is Ravi talking abt.
Looks like the DPP is too young to know what she should & should not do, when and at what point in time.
Perhaps the AG Charmbers should have a better prepared lawyer for this case, then Hema.
The worlds watching and she does not know when to object.
Perhaps, they are trying & testing some strategy to throw Ravi off-guard.
@DML
Are you a trained and practising lawyer to know & understand what he’s doing or talking about.
Perhaps you can share you views.
Ravi may lose Alan’s case but he already wins by making the kangaroos hop for the world to see, and they are hopping more each passing day. So, in my book, Ravi has already won.
I wish Ravi and Alan good luck and plenty of God’s grace when in the devil den.
From the start this already is an impossible battle to win, what ravi can do is give it a good fight, for this I salute him
Ravi please stay the course. This is ABOUT YOUR CLIENT.
who is this hema new bird please dont bully singaporean lawyer he is the only one who has the guts to face the country court one on one well done ravi
Read the version reported by the Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_593248.html).
A totally different “perspective” that seeks to paint Ravi in a bad light. Another great article by our nation building press..
End of the day when verdict is passed, it might just prove that what Alan Shadrake has written in his book is all true. The result is almost certain now.
It is not a surprise that the AG Chamber will not question the veracity of the contents in Alan Shadrake’s book, as they know that the contents are factual.
All that the AG Chamber can work on to recover from their painful embarrassment for being scandalised in Alan Shadrake’s shocking expose – is to limit their vindictive acts on some narrow re-interpretation of 14 selected short sentences and statements.
To delve wider into the book can only be self-defeating, and require more unsavory truth to be dredged up that will help Alan Shadrake to write another follow-up book.
If this case had posed a more serious threat to the State, perhaps the AG would have represented the State instead of a fresh faced DPP.
The ‘wayang’ had to be performed, and Ravi may yet score a small victory, while Alan Shadrake will pay a fine without going to prison (too troublesome for the State to attend to his heart condition), with the State regaining its thin skin moral authority, and the entire matter is best kept deeper in the vaults of the Supreme Court.
[Quote]At issue was the following portion of Ms Subramanian’s submissions…“The suggestion of his [Mr Ravi’s] submissions seems to be that the present and past contempt cases were brought because the AG is “overly sensitive” and “thin-skinned” and not because the statements in question were actually contemptuous.[Endquote]
How did the AGC that instructed its DPP Hema Balasubramaniam to make this allegation agaisnt Ravi construe a statement by Ravi about the AGC to be scandaling the JUDICIARY?
Ravi made NO imptations agaisnt the Judiciary. He only made statements against the AGC for bringing this frivolous charges at public expense against Shadrake.
Does the AGC have its collective head screwed on right?
It would seem as if the AGC would twist any statement as opportunistically as they can so that the charges agaisnt Shadrake could stick and stick fast.
SHAME on all of you, scoundrels at the AGC!
It is the AGC that initiated that these charges and that’s all that Ravi’s statement addressed. Period.
Justice Quentin Loh then gave the assurance that if the Attorney General were to press charges against Mr Ravi because of the current proceedings, they would be heard before him and he would be given a fair hearing.”
The Justice wants M Ravi to be representing his client at this point of time because the Justice indeed may have thought this is the best time to corner M Ravi and to throw him out of the jurry and of being a lawyer at a later stage.I think very soon M Ravi should be at his knees with the jury.
Dragging the case on and complicates the situation further is not in the best interest of AGC and the Jury; since all eyes are on them – and especially an “Ang Mo” is involved.
You never know the reaction of Britain and their politicians; being bigger and mightier and after all, they are once Singapore’s Master.
Well the ‘angmoh’ came saw and thought that he can conquer with the pen and not the sword forgetting who are the new ‘masters’.
@Temujin 21 October 2010
//Well the ‘angmoh’ came saw and thought that he can conquer with the pen and not the sword forgetting who are the new ‘masters’.//
*
Did you not know that the ‘ang moh’ believe that their “pen.is mightier than the sword” ?!!
@ Atobe,
nice one man!
the ‘ang moh’ also probably believe their pen is mightier than the new masters’ pen.
maybe it is not a bad idea for the ‘ang moh’ to recolonize Singapore, get it right this time with the democratic process, before withdrawing again.
afterall the ‘ang moh’ got it wrong the last time, right?…supporting a ‘closet dictator’ who hoodwinked everyone then…and still trying to do the same now, right ?
The only way to prove Ravi is wrong about our court is to grant a fair judgement on this case. Either side I look at it, Ravi is winning. Which is the reason why the judge stop the prosecutor for displaying nonsense and junior behavior.
My fullest respect to Mr. Ravi for taking this case. He had set a standard for our local lawyer to follow.
To those that think Mr. Ravi is risking his client with this case. Do you have even half of what Mr. Ravi has in term of guts and wisdom if you have taken this case? Talk is cheap to judge without listening properly is even worst.
Well the ‘ang moh’ can’t use the sword today unless we have WMD so the pen might be a better devise or better still come in with a track record as long as a monkey’s tail genuine or otherwise and enjoy perks they can’t find back home after all the Indians and Chinese are no contest in this field.
One more thing,why do we need ‘ang moh’ to fight our own battles???
JBJ,Lee Siew Choh,Lim Chin Siong fought going to their graves,Chee,Lau,Chiam and Kenneth returning from ‘ang moh’ land and many others are still fighting today.
Why do we need ‘ang moh’ is it ‘Tua Kee’???and don’t give the shit of PAP uneven level field,you either have the balls like those named above or just shut up and sit down like the saying goes at AWARE.
@ Temujin,
your nick sounds familiar, like the original genghis khan who of course had plenty of guts. LOL
JBJ, Lee SC, Lim CS, Chee, Chiam, etc, as far as i can recall, none of these brave souls ever proclaimed that those who have no balls should just shut up and sit down. Heck! not even LKY! LOL
Maybe you can prove to all readers you walk the talk…like showing your identity first. LOL
Yesugai-
I don’t need to as I am not a politician seeking votes but you can see me among those walkabout with a Singapore flag on my lapel.
My point is don’t shout and scream for the sake of egotistical attention,walk the talk by being there and if that fails blame no one but ourselves as we have that one vote to make the difference.
My hope is to make the difference and no amount of shouting, screaming and cursing will create the change so desperately needed.
Its working the ground and posting rationally with ideas for the politicians PAP or oppositions to be aware that there are people of substance seeking change for the better of Singapore and its people.
@ Temujin,
kindly read and digest all the comments from different nicks including mine.
anyone shouting, screaming and cursing ?
now read the last paragraph from your own posting, you implied those who have no balls should just shut up and sit down…am i not right ?
seriously, from your latest statements i doubt you can connect well with the public to make a difference. LOL
I had wanted to include this information in my earlier post from my own studies in law courses, but did not because I couldn’t remember the exact details. I still don’t, but I will try and hunt down the details and write another post.
For now this is what I will share. I refer once more to the AGC’s veiled threat to charge Ravi with ‘scandalizing the courts’.
I recall from my studies that the courts enjoy a certain privilege much like parliamentary privilege where anything can be said by an MP in Parliament, even something defamatory, but no legal action can be taken against him. The reasoning behind this privilege is that to get to the bottom of a matter, it is not actually known what type of information is required to help better understand a problem so as to find the best solution for it.
In court, a lawyer’s job is to defend his client to the fullest extent possible (and within reason, of course) and in some cases that could mean that he might have to take the prosecutors or even the Bench to task and while remaining protected by the law. The example we studied in class was that of defamation. Statements ruled to be defamatory, when repeated outside of court as fact are themselves acts of defamation. However, in the court prceedings for that particular case of defamation, the statements charged as defamatory can in fact be repeated in court so as to subject them to the necessary scrutiny and determine if it is in fact defamatory.
This brings me to the question: if Ravi’s in-court statments can themselves be deemed to be ‘scadalizing the courts’ – reminder: he did not say anything about the judiciary, but the AGC, no matter how the AGC hopes to distort his statements – simply for uttering them in court in the course of defending his client, then by the same token, shouldn’t Hema Balasubramaniam also be charged with contempt of court since she repeated Alan Shadrake’s alleged statements that were ‘in contempt of court’ while she defended her clients, the people of Singapore?
I hope Ravi looks into this matter as well.
///I recall from my studies that the courts enjoy a certain privilege much like parliamentary privilege where anything can be said by an MP in Parliament, even something defamatory, but no legal action can be taken against him.///
As far as I can recall, this rule did not stand water. LKY had sued Jayaranam after some remarks in the parliament. He was a MP at that time.
Using the name “Temujin” cannot be a person that is quiet. You are very much contradict in the way you spoke yourself. It seem that you are the one in this discussion to put people down and make a statement.
///My point is don’t shout and scream for the sake of egotistical attention,///
This really don’t fit your remarks earlier. 成吉思汗
yasugai-
You are right,I forgot that this is TOC and not TR it takes time to come out of a bad dream.
My comment was meant for the chest beating,vulgar one liners @ TR apologies to TOC readers.
“The defense seems to have been prepared according to the old rules. ‘If the facts are against you, hammer the law. If the law is against you, hammer the facts. If the fact and the law are against you, hammer opposing counsel.’”
How can the DPP threaten the Defense Counsel in the court during the trial????
I like Ravi. Some claim that he is seeking fame and I don’t disagree. Are we all not doing that at some point in our lives? Why post comments online for all to see if you aren’t even a hint of doing the same despite being anonymous?
Ravi may not win. We know that and so does he. If his only motive is to seek fame, wouldn’t it make better sense to install himself as defence lawyer of the state than of the common man alleged to defame the state?
If you are a lawyer and you want success, do you have the guts and the intellectual wisdom to take on so many defamation cases against the state knowing that you will lose 9 out of 10? Pro bono or not is besides the point.
@RED-man, I don’t think you are right about JBJ being sued for anything he said in Parliament while it was in session, even if he was ‘in Parliament’ (ie. an MP or NCMP) at the same time.
@Roy Chan, my take on those who accuse Ravi of being attention-seeking is that they are resentful towards for him for getting the positive attention and especially the growing respect from netizens. Sour grapes, in other words.
Save Vui Kong
You are right. Thanks for the correction. Cheers