|
''Shadrake Alan v. Attorney-General'' is a 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Singapore that clarified the law relating to the offence of scandalizing the court. Alan Shadrake, the author of the book ''Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock'' (2010), was charged with contempt of court by way of scandalizing 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; and that it is the method by which Singapore's ruling party, the People's Action Party, stifles political dissent in Singapore. In the High Court, Justice Quentin Loh made significant changes to the law when he rejected the use of the long-standing "inherent tendency" test that had been applied to establish the ''actus reus'' of the offence, and instead adopted a "real risk" test. This allows a court to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the uttering or publication of the impugned words and to only hold someone liable if that person has created a real risk in the circumstances in which the impugned words were communicated. In addition, he ruled that should an impugned statement be found to have scandalized the court, the only applicable defence to contempt of court would be if the statement amounted to "fair criticism". In doing so, he rejected justification and fair comment as defences. Applying the real risk test, Justice Loh found that 11 out of 14 impugned statements were contemptuous and that the defence of fair criticism did not apply to any of the statements. The High Court thus found Shadrake guilty of the offence of contempt by way of scandalizing the court and sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment and a fine of S$20,000. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal, while upholding the use of the real risk test, made several changes to the way the test is to be applied. In addition, the Court clarified that fair criticism is an element that determines whether there is liability, rather than operates as a defence. The Court, when applying its modified test, found that only nine of the 14 statements were contemptuous. It upheld the sentence passed by the High Court. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments explored the rationale for the law against contempt of court and its relation with freedom of speech, and emphasized the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice which can be impugned by contempt of court. ==Facts== In 2010, British investigative journalist Alan Shadrake was charged in Singapore with the offence of scandalizing the court, a type of contempt of court. The Attorney-General alleged that he had scandalized the court by attacking its reputation in his 2010 book ''Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock''.〔.〕 Fourteen statements of varying lengths from the book were purported to have alleged that the Singapore judiciary had succumbed to political and economic pressures when adjudicating matters concerning the death penalty, is biased against the economically and educationally disadvantaged, and is a tool of the ruling People's Action Party to stifle dissent within the political domain in Singapore.〔 ("''Shadrake'' (H.C.)").〕 Contempt of court by scandalizing the court, also known as "scandalizing contempt", may be defined as "()ny act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the Court into contempt, or to lower his authority".〔''R. v. Gray'' () 2 Q.B. 36 at 40, High Court (Queen's Bench) (England & Wales) ''per'' Lord Russell, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, cited in ''Shadrake'' (H.C.), p. 458, para. 22.〕 The power to punish for contempt of court is vested in the judiciary by virtue of section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.〔.〕〔 ("''Shadrake'' (C.A.)").〕 While contempt of court is a criminal offence, applications for committal are made under Order 52 of the Rules of Court,〔.〕 which is a civil procedure.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Shadrake v Attorney-General」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|