Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan: Contempt of Court for Scandalizing Judiciary

In Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan, the High Court of Singapore, on 31 March 2006, found Chee Soon Juan guilty of contempt of court for scandalizing the judiciary. The Attorney-General applied for an order of committal against Chee Soon Juan, alleging that Chee acted in contempt "in the face of the court" and scandalized the Singapore judiciary through a statement alleging bias and unfairness. The court found Chee's actions to be a blatant accusation against the Singapore judiciary, warranting a jail sentence of one day and a fine of $6,000, with a default sentence of seven days' imprisonment if the fine was not paid.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Order of committal granted against the Respondent.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Chee Soon Juan was found guilty of contempt of court for alleging judicial bias and unfairness. The High Court sentenced him to one day in jail and a $6,000 fine.

1.7 Decision Date

30 March 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Applicant	Government Agency	Order of committal granted	Won	Dominic Zou of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Seiu Kin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teh Hwee Hwee of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chee Soon Juan	Respondent	Individual	Order of committal granted	Lost	M Ravi of M Ravi & Co Violet Netto of M Ravi & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Dominic Zou	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Seiu Kin	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Teh Hwee Hwee	Attorney-General’s Chambers
M Ravi	M Ravi & Co
Violet Netto	M Ravi & Co

4. Facts

Chee Soon Juan read a statement alleging the court's partiality and bias before an assistant registrar.
Chee Soon Juan circulated the statement to media representatives outside the courtroom.
The statement alleged that the Singapore judiciary was biased and unfair.
The statement alleged that the judiciary acted at the instance of the Government in cases involving opposition politicians.
The statement insinuated that judges were controlled by the Government.
The statement appeared on a website related to Chee Soon Juan.

5. Formal Citations

Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan, OS 285/2006, [2006] SGHC 54

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-02-10	Bankruptcy hearing before Assistant Registrar Low Siew Ling
2006-02-16	Applicant granted leave to apply for order of committal
2006-02-20	Summons dated
2006-03-31	Decision date

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of court
- Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of contempt of court for scandalizing the judiciary.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scandalizing the court
  - Contempt in the face of the court
- Related Cases:
  - [1900] 2 QB 36
  - [1991] SLR 383
Freedom of speech
- Outcome: The court held that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to restrictions, including those designed to protect against contempt of court.
- Category: Constitutional

8. Remedies Sought

Order of committal

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
In re Johnson	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1887] 20 QBD 68	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that those with duties in a court of justice are protected by law.
The King v Almon	N/A	Yes	(1765) Wilm 243	N/A	Cited for the principle that judicial officers conducting the business of the court are entitled to the court's protection.
Ex parte Wilton	N/A	Yes	(1842) 1 Dowl NS 805	N/A	Cited for the principle that judicial officers conducting the business of the court are entitled to the court's protection.
Attorney-General v British Broadcasting Corporation	N/A	Yes	[1981] AC 303	N/A	Cited for the principle that immunities and protections accorded to recognized courts should be extended to tribunals with equivalent characteristics.
The Queen v Gray	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1900] 2 QB 36	England and Wales	Cited as the locus classicus for the definition of scandalizing the court.
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd	N/A	No	[1974] AC 273	N/A	Cited to show conflicts between common law on contempt and the UK's obligation under the European Convention.
Sunday Times v United Kingdom	European Court of Human Rights	No	(1979) 2 EHRR 245	Europe	Cited to show conflicts between common law on contempt and the UK's obligation under the European Convention.
Ahnee v Director of Public Prosecutions	Privy Council	Yes	[1999] 2 AC 294	Mauritius	Cited for the principle that the need for the offence of scandalizing the court is greater on a small island.
AG v Wain	High Court	Yes	[1991] SLR 383	Singapore	Cited for the principle that attacks on a judge's impartiality must be firmly dealt with.
Re Tan Khee Eng John	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 382	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts in different jurisdictions may hold different ideas about the principles to be adhered to in their administration of justice.
AG v Wong Hong Toy	High Court	Yes	[1982–1983] SLR 398	Singapore	Cited as an example of a local case where unfounded attacks on the integrity of the Judiciary were considered contempt of court.
AG v Zimmerman	High Court	Yes	[1984–1985] SLR 814	Singapore	Cited as an example of a local case where unfounded attacks on the integrity of the Judiciary were considered contempt of court.
AG v Pang Cheng Lian	High Court	Yes	[1972–1974] SLR 658	Singapore	Cited as an example of a local case where unfounded attacks on the integrity of the Judiciary were considered contempt of court.
AG v Lingle	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 696	Singapore	Cited for the principle that liability for scandalizing the court does not depend on proof of a 'real risk' of prejudicing the administration of justice.
The King v Davies	King's Bench Division	Yes	[1906] 1 KB 32	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that statements calculated to excite general dissatisfaction with judicial determinations constitute contempt.
The King v Nicholls	High Court of Australia	No	(1911) 12 CLR 280	Australia	Cited for the principle that statements concerning a judge do not constitute contempt unless they obstruct or interfere with the course of justice.
Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago	Privy Council	Yes	[1936] AC 322	Trinidad and Tobago	Cited for the limits to the right of fair criticism of the courts and judges.
Jeyaratnam JB v Law Society of Singapore	Privy Council	No	[1988] SLR 1	Singapore	Cited in relation to allegations of injustice suffered by Jeyaretnam and Wong Hong Toy.
Jeyaretnam v Mahmood	N/A	No	The Times (21 May 1992)	England and Wales	Cited to show reservations on the comments made by the Privy Council on the convictions of Jeyaretnam and Wong Hong Toy.
Re Nicholas William Henric QC	High Court	No	[2002] 2 SLR 296	Singapore	Cited in relation to the Respondent's unsuccessful application to admit two Queen's Counsel.
Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1968] 2 QB 157	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a belief published in good faith can amount to 'fair comment' even if the belief was not reasonable.
Attorney-General v Blomfield	N/A	Yes	(1914) 33 NZLR 545	New Zealand	Cited for the principle that admitting the defence of justification would allow the court hearing the allegation of contempt to 'sit to try the conduct of the Judge'.
Public Prosecutor v S R N Palaniappan	N/A	Yes	[1949] MLJ 246	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that publications attacking judges in their judicial capacity are instances of contempt of court even though proceedings are not pending.
R v Thomson Newspapers, Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1968] 1 All ER 268	N/A	Cited for the principle that in deciding whether an act of contempt warrants imprisonment, the likely interference with the administration of justice and the culpability of the offender are determinative.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v Burhan Uray	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 60	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where a sentence of imprisonment was imposed for a blatant refusal to adhere to an order of court.
Lim Meng Chai v Heng Chok Keng	High Court	Yes	[2001] SGHC 33	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where a sentence of imprisonment was imposed for a blatant refusal to adhere to an order of court.
Gallagher v Durack	N/A	Yes	(1983) 45 ALR 53	Australia	Cited for the principle that the object of imposing the penalty for scandalizing the court is to ensure that the unwarranted statements made by the contemnor are repelled and not repeated.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) O 52 r 2(1)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 32 r 14	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 62(1)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 2	Singapore
Rules of Court O 32 r 9(1)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 1 r 4(1)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 52 r 5(1)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 52 r 5(4)	Singapore
Rules of Court O 52 r 5	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) Art 14(1)(a)	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) Art 14(2)(a)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 7(1)	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 21	Singapore
Rules of Court O 14	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Contempt of court
Scandalizing the court
Freedom of speech
Judicial bias
Impartiality
Bankruptcy hearing
Contempt in facie curiae
Defamation without trial

15.2 Keywords

Contempt of court
Scandalizing the court
Freedom of speech
Judicial bias
Singapore judiciary
Criminal contempt

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	95
Scandalising the court	80
Constitutional Law	40
Bankruptcy	30

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Constitutional Law
Criminal Law