But Shadrake found guilty of contempt
M Ravi and Alan Shadrake speaking to the press after the judgement
The real risk test should be applied, said Justice Quentin Loh at the judgement of the Alan Shadrake trial this morning. His decision overturned over four decades of precedence where the inherent tendency test had been applied for contempt cases.
Under the inherent tendency test, an act or statement is deemed contemptuous if it conveys to an average reasonable reader allegations of bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge (or the court) in the exercise of his judicial function.
The real risk test on the other hand requires the prosecution to show that there must be more than a remote possibility that the statements complained of would undermine the administration of justice; that the act or words created a real risk of prejudicing the administration of justice. Other common law countries such as Hong Kong, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have adopted this test.
Applying the real risk test to his decision, Justice Loh identified 11 out of 14 of the contentious statements as being in contempt of court. Out of these 11 statements, Judge Loh said that there was “more than a remote possibility that a significant number of people who have read Shadrake’s book would believe his claims.”
These 11 statements, he said, did not fulfill the three criteria of fair criticism, namely that they had to be made in good faith, they had to have a rational bias, and that the criticisms can be outspoken but respectful.
Judge Loh found three of the statements the Attorney General’s Chambers put forward to be not in contempt. This was despite the AG’s claim in court that the whole book was contemptuous and that the 14 statements complained of were the worst.
Justice Loh further reiterated that the case was not about individual opposition to the death penalty, and anyone who held such views would be fully protected under the Constitution.
“The death penalty is the ultimate punishment under the law, ultimate both in its severity and its irreversibility. It is therefore not surprising that the application of the death penalty by the courts is closely scrutinized and vigorously debated; indeed, it would be profoundly disturbing if citizens adopted a bland and disinterested attitude to the ultimate punishment,’ he said.
However he drew the line between criticism of the death penalty (that it has not served any deterrent purpose), or saying that a judge erred in his judgement, and saying that the judiciary based its decisions on political and economic considerations.
“It is no different from saying I based my decisions on a brown envelope stuffed with dollar notes, “ he added.
Speaking to The Online Citizen after the verdict, Shadrake said that the judge’s verdict is “a very fair ruling.”
Lawyer for Shadrake Mr M Ravi said, “This judgment overturns more than four decades of bad law, and is a good sign that the judiciary recognizes the more mature society we live in. Still, we are disappointed that even applying this more stringent standard, Alan’s statements have been found in contempt. We will be considering whether or not to appeal.”
Sentencing will be decided next Tuesday.
You can read the full judgement here.
At first, dreams seem impossible, then improbable, and eventually inevitable.
Christopher Reeve
Well, well, it’s time Singapore caught up with other countries.
Good luck, Mr Shadrake.
Interesting. The question is, can the *Prosecution* appeal to overturn the real risk test, even though they won the case?
Hooray for Justice Quentin Loh.
Can we have a picture of him?
“Applying the real risk test to his decision, Justice Loh identified 11 out of 14 of the contentious statements as being in contempt of court. Out of these 11 statements, Judge Loh said that there was “more than a remote possibility that a significant number of people who have read Shadrake’s book would believe his claims.”
But if the system is perceived to be unfair and not free from bias since a very long time, what’s the ‘risk’ now? Especially when the opinion of the author is based on ‘facts’ from interviews with the hangman?
This report is so much better than the STonline version.
When I read ST online, I thought… “Oh, so what’s new?”
In fact, there is something significantly new, which restores a bit of my faith in the local legal system even though the verdict was predictable.
3 Cheers to TOC!
But the fact here is that he still lost the case.
In the eyes of Singaporean, does that mean he loses his legitimacy and all his claims against the death penalty is automatically invalidated and does not carry weight ?
Also, can we trust that the “real risk test is being applied fairly in future cases ? Is this process transparent ?
I’m by no means a legal expert but I view this with guarded optimism.
One cannot help but think it might be a pre-election wayang to placate the rising dissastisfaction with the ruling party
While Justice Bao (包青天) has his name passes down generation after generation, all the Sg Justice so-and-so will be similar.
Difference is, Bao is 流芳百世 while Sg’s Justices are 遗臭万年
Any more damage control moves to placate
critical eyes of citizens and the prying eyes of the foreign media before GE?
Maybe the the Malaysian drug trafficker has a chance to escape death penalty.
Ravi, make hay while the sun is out.
wah belLEE very cheem..so many overturns/uturns i also don’t know what the prosetutor tryin to says or do…
cannot argued @ all..(i meant me..yours truly…
Haha. It’s not over till it’s over. Slowly wait-sure have “surprise” one. Like recent case AG Walter agreed that MDP was questionable without due consideration, yet din dong back to even Presidential pardon was just for show.
This is Singapore…wayang first. Everything goes backwards. Just give it some time. Fact that can find him contempt of court is just an excuse to convict. It’s like acquitted of Rape but guilty of intention to Rape- so sentence 50 years for intention – wayang joget joget!
Dun believe, just slowly wait. Sad but true.
It is a show.
Giving you and taking away from you at the same thing…
isn’t this familar?
Nice article, much better than the one on ST, but your first sentence has a typo. =P
Man charged with 10 counts of murder but found not guilty in 9 of them.
The end result is that he was hung for guilty one.
Ravi : “Alan’s statements have been found in contempt. We will be considering whether or not to appeal”
So whats the BREAKING news TOC?
Of course Shadrake will say that he received a fair trial lah! He was just found in contempt of court – would he dare to say again that the court was biased and unfair??
Some more sentence not decided yet… if he criticize judge now, not scared later judge give him a terok sentence?
Those who ‘sentenced’ or can ‘sentenced’ their victims to death are to spare the death sentence themselves. Absurb.
Mr. A accuses B for being not a fair judge. B sued A, and B is the judge of the trial. Will it be a fair trial?
Shouldn’t this case be taken up by some third party court?
@hwtan: Technically, B did not sue A. The DPPs are under the AGC which is not part of the judiciary.
“Mr. A accuses B for being not a fair judge. B sued A, and B is the judge of the trial. Will it be a fair trial?”
This is THE problem that we are facing here.
Ravi. Keep up the good work. Take care. May God bless you. From thankful Singaporean
Let us not forget that the PP can still reserve points of law for determination by C of A. So, no point rejoicing too much yet.
WELL DONE, MR. RAVI! HMMMMM!MAYBE YOU SHOULD JOIN US!!!
<<>>
Hahahahahahhahhahaha
By instituting charges against Alan Shadrake, the AG Chambers had brought a whole minefield to the Judiciary to disarm, and then selectively focused on only 14 mines that were deemed to be manageable – while leaving the rest of the mines untouched and waiting to explode.
The accusations – made by the AG Chambers against Alan Shadrake – were based on 14 statements extracted from the main body of the book.
One will need to ask if AG Chambers did not find anything objectionable with the main issues raised in the main body of text in the book.
If 11 out of the 14 “passages” or “statements” were found to be baseless by the judge – why were references not made to the main body of text from which these were taken from, and which the main body of text had supported this extracted statements ?
Did Alan Shadrake deliberately mislead the readers of his book – by writing falsely in the various court proceedings that formed his book ?
Or were the various claims in Alan Shadrake’s book too close to the truth that required the AG Chambers to institute defamation charges focused on the narrowly preferred extracted passages – without the main text of accusations that were raised in the book ?
This entire matter is similar to food left half eaten, with the other half in the stomach being indigestible.
Statements extracted by Walter Woon and gang taken out of context-lah. Statements by themselves do not say the whole picture.
The function of the court in this case is to determine if the author has, or has not, through the book acted in contempt of court. While the full judgment report by Quentin Loh offers a very solid examination of the 14 statements brought about by the prosecution, I can’t help but felt that some of the words levelled at the defendant are personal conjectures of the Judge himself rather than objective. I share some of my observations below.
Para 84: “On these bases, I am satisfied that the book has a not insignificant range of distribution.” This assertion was made based on the fact that the book was sold in several book stores and that 6,000 copies were sold. The fact that the judge did not offer any form of yardstick to arrive at the conclusion that “the book has a not insignificant range of distribution” is in itself questionable. One can easily argue that 6,000 out of millions of legible citizens is insignificant since it is less than 1%.
Para 91: “… for all his claims to be an activist against the death penalty, Mr Shadrake appears willing to assert that Bohl was guilty of a capital offence….” I do not see any necessity for the Judge to speculate on the defendant’s higher purpose. If anything, such a speculation may interfere in the gravity of sentence to be meted out in due course.
Para 103: “Mr Shadrake once again displays a tendency to distort his own sources for his own purposes.” Is such a subjective emphasis necessary? A “he distorted” or “he did not distort” would be good enough and objective.
Para 131: “In distorting it as grossly as he did, I think Mr Shadrake has passed beyond wrong-headed criticism…” and “a reckless disregard for the truth or falsehood of the allegations he makes.” I’m beginning to wonder if the Judge himself is trying to practise writing a book using colourful words?
These are just some of them. Throughout the report, words like “grave allegations”, “grossly distort”, “insinuation”, “grave assertion”, “grave misconduct” etc can be seen everywhere from beginning to end.
On the 3rd, 6th and 12th statements where Shadrake is found not guilty of contempt, I do not see a single sentence levelling at the prosecution for “grave allegation” or “gross assertion” in charging Shadrake for contempt.
Though I have little knowledge of law, I can certainly read. If you remove the cover pages, you could easily have mistaken the report as a product of the prosecution rather than the Judge. Too much subjectivity on Shadrake that appears to exaggerate the degree of contempt. Between the prosecution and the defendant, presumably as equals before the Judge, the entire report reads as though Shadrake is guilty until proven otherwise. Now, is this the an acceptable practice or not I do not know. Suppose another Judge treats Shadrake as innocent until proven guilty, would the judgment be any different?
There is a lot more the kangaroo must improve. With regard to brown envlope, it is just their regular monthly payslip inside it. Who pays, I wonder.
Anyone who thinks Singapore’s “judiciary” is capable or independent should get his/her head checked.
They answer only to one man, you know who.
From Operation Coldstore, LKY PAP has built a precedent that when the state arrests, prosecute that is start action against a citizen–s/he is already guilty. all the prosecutors needed to do is to produce something or other alleging the proof of guilt and courts find the ways and means to fit the state’s version of events. Why do we have a law school I wonder? And what are lecturers teaching them? You will be (NOT) surprised that legal writing ‘balances’ the opinion rather than taking a stand to protect the civil liberties of citizens. In this way Singapore can be said to be a failed state.
I have that SINKING FEELING, we’re doom both ways. A lot of contradiction and more contradiction and morer as so called unionist said.
Justice Loh http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/data/media/ManagePage/40/Quentin%20Loh.jpg
Thank you, 9F
I found a lot of information on the blog. Waiting for more.
Thanks on your marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author.I will make certain to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back later on. I want to encourage that you continue your great job, have a nice evening!