You Xin v PP: Contempt of Court & Unpermitted Assembly - Falun Gong Practitioners' Appeal
You Xin and Wang Yuyi, along with four other co-accused persons, appealed against their convictions in the District Court for participating in an assembly without a permit, contravening Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules read with s 5(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. The appellants were also convicted of contempt of court for disrupting court proceedings. Rajah JA dismissed the appeal against the assembly conviction and, after reviewing the contempt convictions, declined to exercise his revisionary powers to set them aside.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal by Falun Gong practitioners against convictions for contempt of court and participating in an unpermitted assembly. Appeal dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment upheld | Won | Hay Hung Chun of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| You Xin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Wang Yuyi | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- The appellants, along with four others, were convicted of participating in an assembly without a permit.
- The appellants were also convicted of contempt of court for disrupting court proceedings by chanting.
- The appellants complained about inadequate seating and requested a bigger courtroom, which was denied.
- The appellants disrupted the trial by chanting with their backs to the court after their request was rejected.
- The district judge initially stated, "I find you in contempt" immediately after the chanting.
- The district judge later formulated a charge and gave the accused an opportunity to be heard.
- The appellants argued that the video recording of the incident was tampered with and lacked a specific time.
5. Formal Citations
- You Xin v Public Prosecutor and Another Appeal, MA 28/2007 & 29/2007, [2007] SGHC 120
- PP v You Xin, , [2007] SGDC 79
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused disrupted court proceedings by chanting with their backs to the Court. | |
| Accused were charged with contempt of court. | |
| Accused were sentenced to two days’ imprisonment for contempt of court. | |
| First hearing before Rajah JA. | |
| Adjourned hearing where video recording of the incident was played in court. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found that the procedural safeguards were sufficiently adhered to and declined to set aside the convictions for contempt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Contempt in the face of the court
- Summary conviction for contempt
- Procedural safeguards in summary process
- Participation in Assembly without Permit
- Outcome: The court found that the appellants were in contravention of Rule 5 read with s 5(1) of the Act and dismissed the appeal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether there was an assembly of five or more persons
- Individual culpability
- Evidence of participation
8. Remedies Sought
- Overturning of convictions for participating in an assembly without a permit
- Overturning of convictions for contempt of court
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
- Violation of Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Public Order Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc | N/A | Yes | [1988] Ch 333 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the law of contempt is based on preventing interference with the due administration of justice. |
| Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1974] AC 273 | N/A | Cited for the definition of contempt of court as conduct undermining the system of justice. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 518 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the comments in Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd on the definition of contempt of court. |
| Izuora v R | Privy Council | Yes | [1953] AC 327 | N/A | Cited for the principle that it is not possible to particularise the acts which can or cannot constitute contempt in the face of the court. |
| Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v The King Emperor | N/A | Yes | [1945] AC 264 | N/A | Cited for the principle that words or actions used in the face of the court must interfere or tend to interfere with the course of justice to be considered contempt. |
| McKeown v The King | N/A | Yes | [1971] 16 DLR 390 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the power to punish for contempt in the face of the court can only be exercised for misconduct occurring within the courtroom within the personal view and knowledge of the court. |
| Koperasi Serbaguna Taiping Barat Bhd v Lim Joo Thong | High Court | Yes | [1999] 6 MLJ 38 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the circumstances and categories of facts which may constitute contempt in the face of the court are never closed. |
| R v Almon | N/A | Yes | (1765) Wilm 243 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the power of courts to vindicate their own authority is coeval with their first foundation. |
| Morris v Crown Office | N/A | Yes | [1970] 2 QB 114 | N/A | Cited for the principle that law and order must be maintained in the courts, and those who strike at it strike at the very foundations of society. |
| Jeames v Morgan | N/A | Yes | Jeames v Morgan (1616) Cary 56 | N/A | Cited for the principle that failure to produce a document despite being subpoenaed can amount to contempt. |
| Hennegal v Evance | N/A | Yes | (1860) 12 Ves 201 | N/A | Cited for the principle that witnesses who refuse to take the oath or answer questions may be held guilty of contempt. |
| R v Davison | N/A | Yes | (1821) 4 B & Ald 329 | N/A | Cited for the principle that insult in the face of the court is contempt. |
| R v Stone | N/A | Yes | (1796) 6 Term Rep 527 | N/A | Cited for the principle that disrupting court proceedings is contempt. |
| Ram Goswami v PP | High Court | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 478 | Singapore | Cited for acknowledging the power of subordinate courts in dealing with contempt in its face by invoking the summary process. |
| R v Davies | N/A | Yes | [1906] 1 KB 32 | N/A | Cited for the justification of the summary process as a speedy and efficient means of trying contempt. |
| Attorney-General (NSW) v Mundey | N/A | Yes | [1972] 2 NSWLR 887 | N/A | Cited for the principle that contempt charges should be dealt with summarily only where it is established clearly and beyond reasonable doubt, and where the case can be described as exceptional. |
| Bok Chek Thou v Low Swee Boon | High Court | Yes | [1998] 4 MLJ 342 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the disposition of contempt charges which is summary in nature, may be justified by the need to remove as quickly as possible any impediments or obstructions to the administration of justice. |
| Balogh v Crown Court at St Albans | N/A | Yes | [1975] QB 73 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the summary process should not be resorted to unless absolutely necessary. |
| Weston v Central Criminal Court, Courts Administrator | N/A | Yes | [1977] QB 32 | N/A | Cited for reiterating the sparing use of the extreme remedy of summary procedure and the need to resort to it only when necessary, and then under stringent conditions. |
| Jaginder Singh v Attorney General | N/A | Yes | [1983] 1 MLJ 71 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the summary process for dealing with contempt in the face of the court should not be resorted to unless absolutely necessary. |
| Re V Kumaraendran, An Advocate & Solicitor | N/A | Yes | [1975] 2 MLJ 45 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the summary process for dealing with contempt in the face of the court should not be resorted to unless absolutely necessary. |
| R v Moran | N/A | Yes | [1985] 81 Cr App R 51 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a decision to imprison for contempt should never be taken too quickly and that the judge should give himself time for reflection. |
| Wilkinson v S | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 WLR 1254 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the alleged contemnor may be given the opportunity to purge his contempt by apologising to the court. |
| Jagir Singh v Gram Panchayat Raipur Kalan | N/A | Yes | ILR 1983 (1) (P&H) 396 | N/A | Cited for the definition of "cognisance" as the act of the court in applying its mind towards the offence involved and initiating formal proceedings against the offender. |
| In Re Pollard | N/A | Yes | (1868) LR 2 PC 106 | N/A | Cited for the principle that no person should be punished for contempt of court unless the specific offence charged against him be distinctly stated, and an opportunity of answering it given to him. |
| Chang Hang Kiu v Sir Francis T Piggott | N/A | Yes | [1909] AC 312 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the Chief Justice should have given them an opportunity of giving reasons against summary measures being taken. |
| Coward v Stapleton | N/A | Yes | [1953] 90 CLR 573 | N/A | Cited for the procedural requirements in contempt cases, including stating the specific charge and allowing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. |
| BK v R | N/A | Yes | (1996) 129 DLR (4th) 500 | N/A | Cited for illustrating the law’s desire to uphold the guarantee of due process to all before criminal conviction. |
| Zainur Bin Zakaria v PP | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 MLJ 604 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the opportunity to be heard must necessarily include that a reasonable opportunity be given to the alleged contemnor to prepare his case. |
| Emperor v Shankar Krishnaji Gavankar | N/A | Yes | (1942) 44 Bom LR 439 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the magistrate had failed to pass sentence on the same day as he taken cognisance of the contempt. |
| R v Thomson Newspapers Ltd, ex p Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [1968] 1 WLR 1 | N/A | Cited for assessing the gravity of a contempt in relation to pending proceedings. |
| Re Tan Khee Eng John | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 382 | N/A | Cited for conduct calculated to lower the authority of the court amounted to sheer, unmitigated contempt sufficient to warrant a sentence of imprisonment. |
| Ma Teresa Bebango Bedico v PP | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 192 | N/A | Cited for the threshold for exercising this revisionary power is the requirement of “serious injustice”. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 326 | N/A | Cited for the ambit of this term was described in Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1996] 1 SLR 326 (at 330) as such: [V]arious phrases may be used to identify the circumstances which would attract the exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction, but they all share the common denominator that there must be some serious injustice … there cannot be a precise definition of what would constitute such serious injustice for that would … unduly circumscribe what must be a wide discretion vested in the court … But generally it must be shown that there is something palpably wrong in the decision that strikes at its basis as an exercise of judicial power by the court below. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PP | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 362 | N/A | Cited for the High Court clarified the relationship between s 266(1) of the CPC and the requirement of “serious injustice”. |
| PP v Lee Ah Keh | N/A | Yes | [1968] 1 MLJ 22 | N/A | Cited for the principle that in cases in which the situation makes it difficult for proper records to be kept, the degree of specificity in the record ought to be assessed by reference to the precise factual matrix. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) s 5(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 266(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 268(1) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) s 8 | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 320 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 175 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 178 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 179 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 180 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 228 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 321 | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) s 8(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 322 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 32 rr 9(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 32 rr 9(2) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 323 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contempt in the face of the court
- Summary process
- Procedural safeguards
- Revisionary powers
- Serious injustice
- Assembly without permit
- Falun Gong practitioners
- Chanting
- Disruption of court proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt of court
- Unpermitted assembly
- Falun Gong
- Singapore High Court
- Criminal appeal
- Public order
- Judicial review
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 80 |
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act | 75 |
| Statutory offences | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Criminal Procedure
- Public Order
- Appeals