Senior writer Andy Ho has provided a historical look at the offence of “scandalising the judiciary” (“History behind ‘scandalising the judiciary’”; Monday).
Many writers of law textbooks have taken the liberty to criticise the decisions of some Law Lords and given cogent reasons for doing so. These are clearly not attempts to scandalise the judiciary.
Mr Peter Hain, who served in former British prime minister Tony Blair’s Cabinet, was once accused of scandalising the court after describing a judge as “off his rocker” in his autobiography.
Although the charge was dropped, the case provoked a fierce debate on whether the offence of scandalising the court was in breach of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects free expression.
Scandalising the judiciary has not been successfully prosecuted in England and Wales since 1931, and it is time for Singapore to review whether or not to retain this archaic offence.
Leading barrister David Pannick is of the view that everyone is “entitled to express criticism of a judicial judgment, whether his views are right or wrong, respectful or outspoken” and, accordingly, the offence of scandalising the judiciary should be abolished.
Last year, Britain’s Law Commission recommended that the offence of scandalising the court be abolished and not replaced. It argued that the offence belonged to an era when deferential respect to the judiciary was the norm, and that social attitudes have changed drastically.
Professor David Ormerod, the Law Commissioner leading the project, said: “Scandalising the court amounts to a restriction on freedom of expression. And freedom of expression should not be infringed unless there is a strong and principled reason for doing so.”
If judges are accused of corruption or misconduct, they have recourse to civil defamation proceedings. Hence, the offence of scandalising the judiciary should be relegated to history.
Heng Cho Choon
* Letter first appeared in ST Forum (13 Dec).