User:Chuajz/AG v Shadrake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alan Shadrake, author of Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock (Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2010) was charged with the offence of contempt of scandalising the court. The prosecution alleged that certain passages in his book asserted that the Singapore judiciary lacks independence, succumbs to political and economic pressure and takes a person’s position in society into account when sentencing. The judiciary is the method by which Singapore’s ruling party, the People’s Action Party, stifles political dissent in Singapore.
This is a sandbox for an article that is being edited as part of an educational assignment called the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia project. If you are not a member of the project, please do not edit this article. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Smuconlaw". |
Chuajz/AG v Shadrake | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Singapore |
Full case name | Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan |
Decided | 3 November 2010 |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 327 |
Case history | |
Prior action | none |
Related action | [2010] SGHC 339 |
Court membership | |
Judge sitting | Quentin Loh |
Case opinions | |
"Real risk" test adopted for matters of contempt of scandalising the courts. |
The issue of contempt of court and its relation to freedom of speech in Singapore are particularly important given the small size of the country that necessitates that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined by other comments.
Justice Quentin Loh, found 11 of the 14 statements examined by the court to amount to contempt and fell outside the defence of fair criticism. He further ruled that the ‘real risk’ test for contempt was not significantly different from the 'inherent tendency’ test used in Singapore. However, he surmised that any publication posing real risks of undermining public confidence were prima facie in contempt of court and that only de minimis, remote and fanciful risks are excluded. He stated that whereas the defence of justification and fair comment were not relevant in contempt of court cases, the defence of fair criticism could apply, and this approach adequately balances the freedom of speech and the protection of public confidence in the administration of justice.
The court found Shadrake guilty of the offence of contempt of scandalising the court. His appeal is pending.