My view on whether the offence of scandalising the Court continues to have a place in Singapore.
__________________________________
For those who think that the offence of scandalising the Court is defunct across modern countries, this is not the case.
Its true that the UK have recently abolished the offence, but it remains *very* much alive in other major common law countries such as Australia, Hong Kong and New Zealand.
The Courts in Singapore have also (correctly in my view) changed the test from the "inherent tendency" test to the "real risk" test.
It is also important to bear in mind that:
A. the offence does not prevent criticism of judicial decisions and reasoning, if couched in temperate and reasonable language. This doesn't mean that one cannot attack the reasoning and the quality of the decision - one can indeed say a Court decision is legally comlpletely wrong. But just be mindful of the courtesy of the words used.
B. secondly, the principle behind the offence is *not* to protect judges because *they* are sensitive - the rationale of the offence is to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. That is a value that, imho, is worth preserving.
With respect to the recent case of Alex Au, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the case since it is pending.
But I would ask the question of whether members of the public should have untrammelled freedom to allege that judges manipulate the court calendar and the release of judgments for ulterior motives. If an unjustified allegation on this subject is in fact established, that would to me be a CLEARLY justified ground for a finding of contempt. The reason in favour of such a finding - to re-iterate again - is not to protect judges. They are no wilting flowers and need no protection. The reason is to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.
I do agree, however that prosecutions for contempt should be sparingly used. It certainly should not be used to mute criticism of judicial decisions. But I do think there remains a role for the offence where the integrity of judges is impugned without valid supporting grounds.
Yeoh Lian Chuan
*Article first appeared on his FB page here.