jU l 2011 Jul 2011 | S i n g a p o r e a c a d e m y o f L aw In Focus 03 The Honourable Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong shares his views on contempt of court issues. 06 Harry Elias SC examines the ambit of acts of contempt in relation to lawyers’ conduct. 12 Ang Cheng Hock SC and Tay Yong Seng provide an overview 03 of the law of civil and criminal contempt. 18 Jeth lee speaks to members of the legal fraternity to find out Cover what contempt of court means to rules of court them. 27 A look at the recent decision on the law on contempt of court for scandalising the judiciary. InsIghts 27 34 Yap Teong liang gives guidance on how to deal with challenges in family law practice. Side Bar 44 Adrian Tan brings us true-life examples of contempt of court around the world. 34 44 July 2011 In Focus Inter Se is a everythIng must come to an end and after publishing Inter Se publication of: (and its predecessor) for 22 years, we are sad to announce that this July 2011 issue will be its swansong. It has been quite an experience. Inter Se began as a simple way of disseminating information and reaching out to our members. It started as a four-page SAL Newsletter, which only narrated past events and announced forthcoming activities, that soon morphed into something bigger to include case and legislation updates and thought-provoking articles. Chief Executive With progress came change, bringing about other effective Serene wee avenues for SAl to further its objectives: e-alerts to members; a tier-1 Editors journal for articles; and online services in the form of lawNet and eileen Khoo Singapore law Watch for legislation and case updates. elizabeth Sheares This final issue (unlike another defunct publication’s) contains no Editorial Committee crosswords nor “libels or any hidden mocking messages”; the absence anita parkash of which is due solely to a lack of any grouse to air, and not out of Bala Shunmugam foo Kim Leng deference to the law on defamation, vis-à-vis contempt which is the ranald or theme for this issue. The proofs were ready for publication in July 2010 when, as Murphy’s law would have it, news broke of Alan Shadrake’s case 1 Supreme Court lane, level 6, Singapore 178879. just as we were about to go to print. Aware that the subject matter was Tel: 6332 4388 Fax: 6334 4940 sub judice and the issue incomplete if the court’s decision was excluded, © 2011 Singapore Academy of law we thus put the issue on hold till final judgment was delivered, and a case summary could be included. The judgment of the High Court in All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, Alan Shadrake’s case was delivered on 3 and 16 November 2010 stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by (see [2011] 2 SlR 445, [2011] 2 SlR 506) and by the Court of Appeal any means, whether electronic or on 27 May 2011 (see [2011] SCCA 26): see also p 27 of this issue for mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without the permission a commentary on the decision of the Court of Appeal. of the copyright holder. We hope you will enjoy this last issue of Inter Se. Q & A wIth chIeF JustIce Views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the We have a number of people to thank: Academy, Academy Publishing nor the Editors. Whilst every effort chan seK Keong has been made to ensure that chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and the executive Committee – for the information contained within their complete trust and unending good humour shown to the team in is correct, neither the Academy, The honourable last year, and more recently in your opening of the Academy Publishing, the contributors charge. nor the Editors can accept any Chief JusTiCe Chan legal year speech this January, you spoke about responsibility for any errors or contributors – who unfailingly delivered despite their heavy sek keong shares his omissions or for any consequences proceedings relating to contempt of court. why is this professional schedules. This periodical would be nothing without their resulting therefrom. views on ConTempT of an important issue, and have there been any specific .................................... input. CourT wiTh Inter Se. events or trends that have prompted your comments? adrian tan – our witty but unwitting “freelance writer” who most Publishing Consultant This is an important issue because it affects public cindy Koh likely assumed his Jan–Jun 2008 issue contribution would be a one-off confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the request. Design courts in deciding disputes especially where the our chief Executive and the editorial Committee – Inter Se’s think fariszan mazlan tank members who still had the energy to come up with themes and contempt directly impugns these judicial values. mediactive sub-topics after a long day at work. Specifically, what I had in mind was the contempt mediactive pte Ltd Mediactive – the graphic designers (since May 2003) who came through committed by a few youths wearing T-shirts 31B Kreta Ayer Road imprinted with a picture of a kangaroo, and also the Singapore 088998 each and every time even though the given timeframe for completion Tel: 6242 4987 mysteriously and progressively became shorter with each passing issue. contempt committed by an officious bystander And lastly, our readers who have supported us through the years. Thank you! 02 • | 03 In Focus In Focus from a foreign country to remember this Judges from other particularly in academic They have refrained law of contempt. India against one of our High type of contempt journals, and no such author from imposing deterrent enacted a contempt of Court judges in relation is a common common law jurisdictions may has ever been taken to task sentences on contemnor. court statute some time to a matter which did not law offence. be more tolerant of abuse for what he has written. I cannot say whether this will ago. Other common law concern him. The rationale of and opprobrium being flung change, as it must depend jurisdictions may also have punishing such you have said that at present, on the circumstances of done likewise. Of course, do you see the laws relating kind of contempt at them, but that does not punishments for contempt each case, especially the the draftsman should also to contempt of court in is to uphold the mean that we should follow of court are unlimited and at gravity of the contempt. take into account the current singapore developing authority of the the discretion of the judges, state of the law of contempt similarly to or differently from court which is an their example. although the courts have do you envisage any in common law jurisdictions. those in other jurisdictions? indispensable exercised great restraint in difficulties in the drafting or Future developments in the are there any aspects of the institution for the the past. until such offences enforcement of legislation law can also be provided for singapore judicial, political or administration of have been put into statutory relating to contempt of by enacting an appropriate social system that would have justice. Judges from other appreciate or share the same form, what kinds of contempt court offences, and what provision similar to s 5 of the a unique impact on the nature common law jurisdictions sense of responsibility that of court offences should precautions should be taken Criminal Procedure Code, or penalties for contempt of may be more tolerant of a judge holds with regard be considered particularly to prevent these? save that the referenced court proceedings here? abuse and opprobrium to his office. Scurrilous serious, and what guidelines No, to the first part of the jurisdiction may be widened The law on contempt being flung at them, but remarks, unless firmly dealt should be borne in mind question. None, to the to include all common law of court is fairly well that does not mean that we with, would inevitably by the courts in meting out second part of the question jurisdictions. developed in Singapore. should follow their example. undermine public punishments? so long as the draftsman There are many kinds We do not mind criticism, confidence in the Judiciary. I have mentioned the is familiar with the general Inter Se thanks the Chief of contempt. The more even harsh criticism, of the This is the reason why the more serious offences in principles of contempt Justice for agreeing to this controversial kind is that merits or justice of our courts punish contemnors, my previous comments. and the rationale of the interview. known as “scandalising” the decisions, on grounds that and not, as some people Any baseless allegation that court. It covers allegations are not related to our fitness seem to think, to immunise a judge is not independent, such as that the Judiciary to hold judicial office. and protect themselves especially vis-à-vis the Courts have always accepted criticisms is not independent or Many critics consider from criticism in their work Executive or that he is impartial or that the that the law of contempt is or to restrict freedom corrupt or which undermines which do not impugn their integrity or good judges are pro-Executive obsolete in modern times, of speech. Courts have public confidence in him or faith, such as, that the reasoning of a judge in all cases involving the and some have suggested always accepted criticisms her as a judge, is serious.