Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan: Contempt of Court for Scandalising the Judiciary

In Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan, the High Court of Singapore, on 16 November 2010, convicted Mr. Alan Shadrake of contempt of court for scandalising the judiciary through his book, 'Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock'. The court found that eleven statements in the book undermined public confidence in the administration of justice and were made in bad faith. Mr. Shadrake was sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of S$20,000. The court also ordered Mr. Shadrake to pay costs of $55,000 to the Attorney-General.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Mr. Shadrake was sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of S$20,000, in default of which he shall serve a further 2 weeks in prison, such further term to run consecutively to the first.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Alan Shadrake was convicted of contempt for scandalising the judiciary in his book. The court sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine, citing his lack of remorse.

1.7 Decision Date

15 November 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Applicant	Government Agency	Judgment for Applicant	Won	Low Siew Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Sai Nei of Attorney-General’s Chambers Hema Subramanian of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shadrake Alan	Respondent	Individual	Contempt of court conviction	Lost	M Ravi of L F Violet Netto

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Quentin Loh	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Low Siew Ling	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Sai Nei	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Hema Subramanian	Attorney-General’s Chambers
M Ravi	L F Violet Netto

4. Facts

Mr. Shadrake wrote a book titled 'Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock'.
The Attorney-General alleged that certain statements in the book scandalised the judiciary.
The court found that eleven statements in the book posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
Mr. Shadrake declared that his book was 'devastatingly accurate' after the main judgment.
Mr. Shadrake intended to publish a second edition of the book with new chapters.
The book had sold almost 6,000 copies in Singapore and overseas.

5. Formal Citations

Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan, Originating Summons No 720 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 339
A-G v Shadrake Alan, , [2010] SGHC 327

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-11-16	Judgment reserved
2010-11-07	Guardian newspaper published an online article based on an interview with Mr. Shadrake

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Scandalising the Judiciary
- Outcome: The court found Mr. Shadrake guilty of contempt for scandalising the judiciary.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] SGHC 327

8. Remedies Sought

Imprisonment
Fine

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

Publishing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
A-G v Shadrake Alan	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 327	Singapore	The main judgment where the respondent was convicted of contempt of scandalising the judiciary.
AG v Chee Soon Juan	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 650	Singapore	Cited for the principle that fines would no longer be the norm for the offence of scandalising the court, but distinguished because the contempt was committed in the face of the court.
AG v Hertzberg	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103	Singapore	Cited for the relevant sentencing principles in cases of scandalising the court.
AG v Tan Liang Joo	High Court	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132	Singapore	Cited for the applicable sentencing principles in cases of scandalising the court.
A-G v Pang Cheng Lian	High Court	Yes	[1974–1976] SLR(R) 271	Singapore	Cited as an example where low sentences were imposed in cases where internationally-reputed publications scandalised the courts.
A-G v Zimmerman Fred	High Court	Yes	[1985–1986] SLR(R) 476	Singapore	Cited as an example where low sentences were imposed in cases where internationally-reputed publications scandalised the courts.
A-G v Wain Barry J	High Court	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 85	Singapore	Cited as an example where low sentences were imposed in cases where internationally-reputed publications scandalised the courts.
A-G v Lingle	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 199	Singapore	Cited as an example where low sentences were imposed in cases where internationally-reputed publications scandalised the courts.
Secretary for Justice v The Oriental Press Group Ltd	Hong Kong Court of First Instance	Yes	[1998] HKCFI 564	Hong Kong	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Secretary for Justice v The Oriental Press Group Ltd	Hong Kong Court of First Instance	Yes	[1998] HKCFI 173	Hong Kong	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Secretary of Justice v Choy Bing Wing	Hong Kong Court of First Instance	Yes	[2005] HKCFI 1125	Hong Kong	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Secretary of Justice v Choy Bing Wing	Hong Kong Court of First Instance	Yes	[2005] HKCFI 1159	Hong Kong	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Durack v Gallagher	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	(1982) 65 FLR 459	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Gallagher v Durack	Full Court of the Federal Court	Yes	(1982) 68 FLR 210	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Gallagher v Durack	High Court	Yes	(1983) 152 CLR 238	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Re Bauskis	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	[2006] NSWSC 908	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Re Bauskis	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	[2006] NSWSC 907	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
R v Hoser	Victorian Supreme Court	Yes	[2001] VSC 443	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
R v Hoser	Victorian Supreme Court	Yes	[2001] VSC 480	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Hoser v R	Victorian Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] VSCA 194	Australia	Cited as an illustration of the sentencing approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions.
Chng Yew Chin v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 124	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the exercise of judicial mercy based on medical condition.
A-G v Times Newspaper Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1974] 1 AC 273	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the fact that others are free and are likely to make similar comments must be taken into account in assessing liability.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 52 r 7(1)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 225C	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Scandalising the judiciary
Contempt of court
Public confidence
Administration of justice
Judicial impropriety
Freedom of speech
Investigative journalism

15.2 Keywords

contempt
scandalising judiciary
Shadrake
Singapore
book
imprisonment
fine

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	90
Criminal Law	60
Sentencing	50
Evidence	40
Freedom of speech	30
Civil Procedure	30
Civil Litigation	30
Judicial Review	20
Constitutional Law	20
Patient Confidentiality	10

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Sentencing
Freedom of Speech