Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan: Contempt of Court, Scandalizing the Judiciary

In Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan, the High Court of Singapore, on 2010-11-03, found Alan Shadrake guilty of contempt of court for scandalizing the judiciary in his book 'Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock.' The Attorney-General brought the application, arguing that certain passages in the book undermined the authority of the Singapore courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. The court, presided over by Quentin Loh J, determined that Shadrake's allegations lacked a rational basis and were made with reckless disregard for the truth, thus not protected by the defense of fair criticism.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Mr. Shadrake found guilty of the offence of contempt by scandalising the court and convicted accordingly.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Alan Shadrake, author of 'Once a Jolly Hangman,' is found guilty of contempt for scandalizing the Singapore judiciary, undermining public confidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralApplicantGovernment AgencyJudgment for ApplicantWon
Low Siew Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Sai Nei of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Hema Subramanian of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shadrake AlanRespondentIndividualConvicted of ContemptLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Quentin LohJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Low Siew LingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Sai NeiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Hema SubramanianAttorney-General’s Chambers
M RaviL F Violet Netto

4. Facts

  1. Alan Shadrake authored the book 'Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock'.
  2. The Attorney-General applied to commit Mr. Shadrake for contempt of court.
  3. The book contained passages that allegedly scandalized the Singapore judiciary.
  4. The passages suggested the judiciary was subject to political and economic pressures.
  5. The book was available for sale in Singapore.
  6. Mr. Shadrake held himself out as an investigative journalist.
  7. Mr. Shadrake's book made allegations of bias and impropriety against the Singapore judiciary.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan, Originating Summons No 720 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 327

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Shadrake's statements posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice and did not constitute fair criticism.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scandalizing the court
      • Undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
      • Fair criticism
    • Related Cases:
      • [1900] 2 QB 36
      • [1936] 1 AC 322
  2. Freedom of Speech
    • Outcome: The court balanced the right to freedom of speech with the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary, finding that the restrictions imposed by the law of contempt were justified in this case.
    • Category: Constitutional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal to prison
  2. Punishment for contempt of court

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Constitutional Law

11. Industries

  • Publishing
  • Legal

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re application of Lau Swee SoongHigh CourtYes[1965–1967] SLR(R) 748SingaporeCited to explain the term 'inherent tendency' to mean the presence not just of a real risk of interference but a real and grave one.
A-G v Pang Cheng LianHigh CourtYes[1974–1976] SLR(R) 271SingaporeCited as a local case that established that mounting unfounded attacks on the integrity of the Judiciary or making allegations of bias and lack of impartiality, is contempt of court.
A-G v Wong Hong ToyHigh CourtYes[1983–1984] SLR(R) 34SingaporeCited as a local case that established that mounting unfounded attacks on the integrity of the Judiciary or making allegations of bias and lack of impartiality, is contempt of court.
A-G v Zimmerman FredHigh CourtYes[1985–1986] SLR(R) 476SingaporeCited as a local case that established that mounting unfounded attacks on the integrity of the Judiciary or making allegations of bias and lack of impartiality, is contempt of court.
A-G v Wain Barry JHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 85SingaporeCited for the 'inherent tendency' test, viz, whether the acts or words complained of had the inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.
A-G v LingleHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 199SingaporeCited for the proposition that it was not necessary to show that a person intended to interfere with the administration of justice before he can be held for contempt.
A-G v Chee Soon JuanHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 650SingaporeCited for the position in Singapore regarding the offence of scandalising the court is well settled. Any publication which alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence of scandalising the court.
A-G v Hertzberg DanielHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103SingaporeCited for the 'inherent tendency' test and the argument that the court should consider whether there was a real risk that the publications would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
A-G v Tan Liang Joo JohnHigh CourtYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132SingaporeCited for the 'inherent tendency' test and the argument that the court should consider whether there was a real risk that the publications would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
Mah Kah Yew v PPHigh CourtYes[1968-1970] SLR(R) 851SingaporeCited for the rule of horizontal stare decisis for the High Court.
Young v Bristol AeroplaneCourt of AppealYes[1944] 1 KB 718England and WalesCited for the rule of horizontal stare decisis for the High Court.
Wong Hong Toy v PPCourt of AppealYes[1985-1986] SLR(R) 656SingaporeCited for the authority expressly affirming that the High Court is not bound by its previous decisions.
R v AlmonKing's BenchYes(1765) Wilm 243EnglandCited for the rationale underlying the contempt of scandalising the court.
A-G v Times Newspaper LtdHouse of LordsYes[1974] 1 AC 273United KingdomCited for the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice.
S-G v Radio Avon LtdNew Zealand Court of AppealYes[1978] 1 NZLR 225New ZealandCited for the justification for this branch of the law of contempt is that it is contrary to the public interest that the public confidence in the administration of justice should be undermined.
Gallagher v DurackHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1983) 152 CLR 238AustraliaCited for the authority of the law rests on public confidence, and it is important to the stability of society that the confidence of the public should not be shaken by baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of courts or judges.
Secretary for Justice v Oriental Press Group Ltd and othersHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[1998] 2 HKC 627Hong KongCited for the rationale for the branch of the law of contempt known as “scandalising the court”.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLCCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the doctrine of contempt of court is not intended, in any manner or fashion whatsoever, to protect the dignity of the judges as such; its purpose is more objective and is (more importantly) rooted in the public interest.
In the Matter of a Special Reference from the Bahamas IslandsPrivy CouncilYes[1893] AC 138BahamasCited for the fact that contempt only applies in respect of publications relating to a judge qua judge; it does not apply comments directed at a judge purely in his personal capacity.
Ambard v A-G of Trinidad and TobagoPrivy CouncilYes[1936] 1 AC 322Trinidad and TobagoCited for the right to make fair criticism of the courts.
R v GrayQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1900] 2 QB 36England and WalesCited as the fount of the modern law on contempt of court.
R v Commissioner of Police, ex parte Blackburn (No 2)Court of AppealYes[1968] 2 QB 150England and WalesCited for the right to criticise the courts.
M’Leod v St AubynPrivy CouncilYes[1899] AC 549Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesCited for the statement that committals for contempt of Court by scandalizing the Court itself have become obsolete in this country.
R v PayneQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1896] 1 QB 577England and WalesCited for the emphasis that every libel on a person about to be tried is not necessarily a contempt of Court; but the applicant must shew that something has been published which either is clearly intended, or at least is calculated, to prejudice a trial which is pending.
R v Duffy, ex p NashQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1960] 2 QB 188England and WalesCited for the 'real risk' formulation.
R v Odhams Press LtdQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1957] 1 QB 73England and WalesCited for the test is whether the matter complained of is calculated to interfere with the course of justice.
Lutchmeeparsad Badry v Director of Public ProsecutionsPrivy CouncilYes[1983] 2 AC 297MauritiusCited for the analysis of the several publications said to scandalise the court casts light on what it understood to be the long established test in R v Gray.
Ahnee v Director of Public ProsecutionsPrivy CouncilYes[1999] 2 AC 294MauritiusCited for the statement that there must be a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice before the offence of contempt was made out.
R v Hoser and Kotabi Pty LtdSupreme Court of VictoriaYes[2001] VSC 443AustraliaCited for the Australian position on contempt of court.
McGuirk v University of NSWSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[2009] NSWSC 1058AustraliaCited for the Australian position on contempt of court.
Hoser v RVictorian Court of AppealYes[2003] VSCA 194AustraliaCited for the finding that there was a real risk that as a matter of practical reality the impugned publication had a tendency to undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice and lower the authority of the courts.
A-G of New South Wales v MundeySupreme Court of New South WalesYes[1972] 2 NSWLR 887AustraliaCited for the question whether the defendant's statements constituted contempt must be determined by reference to their inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.
Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary for JusticeHong Kong Court of AppealYes[1999] 2 HKC 24Hong KongCited for the 'real risk' standard was correct.
Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary of JusticeCourt of Final AppealYes[1999] 3 HKC 143Hong KongCited for the declaration that the courts below have given detailed and cogent reasons for reaching their conclusion.
A-G v BlomfieldSupreme Court of New ZealandYes(1914) 33 NZLR 545New ZealandCited for the statement that the court does not sit to try the conduct of the Judge.
R v NichollsHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1911) 12 CLR 280AustraliaCited for the statement that an imputation of want of impartiality to a Judge is not necessarily a contempt of Court.
Nationwide News Proprietary Ltd v WillsHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1992) 177 CLR 1AustraliaCited for the statement that so long as the defendant is genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, he or she is immune.
S-G v SmithHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 NZLR 540New ZealandCited for the statement that the real risk test, coupled with a right of fair criticism, constitutes a reasonable limit on the freedom of speech and expression.
Times NewspaperEnglish Court of AppealYes[1973] 1 QB 710England and WalesCited for the statement that all these judicial definitions are attempting to describe the same thing.
Ex p A-G; Re GoodwinSupreme Court of New South WalesYes(1969) 70 SR (NSW) 413AustraliaCited as an example of a case where a letter circulated by a disappointed litigant to the Attorney-General of New South Wales and 13 Registrars of the district courts was found to be in contempt.
Tan Lai Kiat v PPCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 1042SingaporeCited for the statement that a culture of openness has long since taken firm root in our courts, with mistakes being acknowledged openly rather than being papered over.
Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PPHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 1SingaporeRefers to the case of Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 (“Bhatia”), where V K Rajah J (as he then was) reduced the sentence of the defendant to eight months from the 12 months imposed by the district court.
PP v Vignes s/o Mourthi & AnorHigh CourtYes[2002] SGHC 240SingaporeRefers to the case of Vignes Mourthi, who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death (see PP v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Anor [2002] SGHC 240, affirmed in Vignes s/o Mourthi v PP [2003] 3 SLR(R) 105).
Vignes s/o Mourthi v PPCourt of AppealYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 105SingaporeRefers to the case of Vignes Mourthi, who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death (see PP v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Anor [2002] SGHC 240, affirmed in Vignes s/o Mourthi v PP [2003] 3 SLR(R) 105).
Vignes s/o Mourthi v PPCourt of AppealYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 300SingaporeRefers to the case of Vignes Mourthi, who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death (see PP v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Anor [2002] SGHC 240, affirmed in Vignes s/o Mourthi v PP [2003] 3 SLR(R) 105).
Vignes Mourthi v PPCourt of AppealYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 518SingaporeRefers to the case of Vignes Mourthi, who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death (see PP v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Anor [2002] SGHC 240, affirmed in Vignes s/o Mourthi v PP [2003] 3 SLR(R) 105).
PP v S RajkumarSubordinate CourtsYes[2005] SGDC 77SingaporeRefers to the case of Sgt Rajkumar from the Central Narcotics Bureau was under investigation for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 2002 Rev Ed) at about the same time as he was giving evidence in Mourthi’s case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore
Subordinate Courts ActSingapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Article 93Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Article 14Singapore
Prevention of Corruption ActSingapore
Internal Security ActSingapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Scandalizing the court
  • Contempt of court
  • Fair criticism
  • Public confidence
  • Administration of justice
  • Inherent tendency test
  • Real risk test
  • Freedom of speech
  • Judiciary
  • Impartiality
  • Bias
  • Investigative journalism

15.2 Keywords

  • contempt of court
  • scandalizing judiciary
  • freedom of speech
  • Singapore
  • Alan Shadrake
  • Once a Jolly Hangman

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court95
Scandalising the court90
Fair Criticism80
Freedom of speech75
Constitutional Law60
Evidence Law30
Civil Procedure25
Defamation20
Criminal Law20

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Judicial Independence