Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General: Contempt of Court for Scandalising the Judiciary
Alan Shadrake appealed against the decisions of the trial judge in Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan, where Shadrake was found in contempt of court for eleven of the fourteen impugned statements and sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $20,000. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Lai Siu Chiu J, and Philip Pillai J, dismissed the appeal in part, finding nine of the fourteen statements contemptuous, and affirmed the original sentence. The case concerned issues relating to the law of contempt, specifically scandalising the judiciary.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part, sentence affirmed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Alan Shadrake was found in contempt of court for scandalising the judiciary. The Court of Appeal upheld most of the original decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment affirmed | Won | Lim Sai Nei of Attorney-General’s Chambers David Chong Gek Sian of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shadrake Alan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | No |
| Philip Pillai | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Sai Nei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| David Chong Gek Sian | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | LF Violet Netto |
4. Facts
- Alan Shadrake authored the book 'Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock'.
- The Attorney-General applied to commit Shadrake for contempt of court in relation to certain passages in the book.
- The trial judge found Shadrake in contempt of court for eleven of the fourteen impugned statements.
- The trial judge sentenced Shadrake to six weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $20,000.
- Shadrake appealed against the decisions of the trial judge.
- The Court of Appeal found nine of the fourteen statements to be contemptuous.
- Shadrake expressed an intention to publish a second edition of the book.
5. Formal Citations
- Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 212 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Civil Appeal No 212 of 2010 filed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Scandalising the Judiciary
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that nine of the fourteen statements made by the Appellant were contemptuous as they posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Test for Liability for Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal affirmed the 'real risk' test as the applicable test for liability for scandalising contempt.
- Category: Substantive
- Fair Criticism
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the concept of fair criticism goes towards liability for contempt of court.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Publishing
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 445 | Singapore | Decision on liability for contempt of court. |
| Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 506 | Singapore | Decision on sentencing for contempt of court. |
| Attorney-General v Lingle | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 199 | Singapore | Cited for the jurisdiction to punish for contempt in s 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary for Justice | Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 HKC 143 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the right of free speech is not absolute and that every civilized community is entitled to protect itself from malicious conduct aimed at undermining the due administration of justice. |
| You Xin v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 17 | Singapore | Cited for the classification of contemptuous acts into contempt by interference and contempt by disobedience. |
| McLeod v St Aubyn | Privy Council | Yes | [1899] AC 549 | United Kingdom | Cited for the classification of contempt by interference. |
| Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago | Privy Council | Yes | [1936] AC 322 | Trinidad and Tobago | Cited for the principle that the law relating to contempt of court is not intended to protect the dignity of judges and that justice is not a cloistered virtue. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental purpose underlying the law relating to contempt of court is to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined. |
| Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1974] AC 273 | United Kingdom | Cited for the importance of maintaining the authority of the courts. |
| Attorney-General v Wong Hong Toy | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1983–1984] SLR(R) 34 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental purpose underlying the law relating to contempt of court is to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined. |
| Attorney-General v Zimmerman Fred and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1985–1986] SLR(R) 476 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental purpose underlying the law relating to contempt of court is to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined. |
| Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental purpose underlying the law relating to contempt of court is to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined. |
| Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental purpose underlying the law relating to contempt of court is to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined. |
| R v Duffy and others, ex parte Nash | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1960] 2 QB 188 | United Kingdom | Cited for the 'real risk' test in the context of sub judice contempt. |
| R v Kopyto | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 47 DLR (4th) 213 | Canada | Discussed in relation to the 'clear and present danger' test and the 'serious risk' test. |
| Bridges v State of California | US Supreme Court | Yes | [1941] 314 US 252 | United States | Cited for the 'clear and present danger' test in the United States context. |
| The State v Russell Mamabolo | Constitutional Court of South Africa | Yes | (2001) 3 SA 409 (CC) | South Africa | Cited for the unique cultural and constitutional position of freedom of speech in the US. |
| Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary for Justice | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 HKC 24 | Hong Kong | Summarized and analyzed the decision in Kopyto. |
| Secretary for Justice v Oriental Press Group Ltd | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [1998] 2 HKC 627 | Hong Kong | Cited for the proposition that those who come into contact with the impugned publication may not always be average reasonable persons. |
| Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1956] AC 696 | United Kingdom | Cited for the concept of the fair and reasonable man. |
| Attorney-General v Wain Barry J and Others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited for the 'inherent tendency' test. |
| Attorney-General v Chee Soon Juan | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 650 | Singapore | Appeared to adopt the 'inherent tendency' test. |
| Attorney-General for State of Queensland v Colin Lovitt QC | Supreme Court of Queensland | Yes | [2003] QSC 279 | Australia | Cited for the inherent tendency of criticism to diminish the authority of the court and the public’s confidence in it. |
| The Queen v Gray | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1900] QB 36 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that judges and courts are alike open to criticism. |
| Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn (No 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1968] 2 QB 150 | United Kingdom | Cited for the right to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. |
| Gilbert Ahnee and others v Director of Public Prosecutions | Privy Council | Yes | [1999] 2 AC 294 | Mauritius | Cited for the defence based on the right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. |
| Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1992) 177 CLR 1 | Australia | Cited for the principle 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. |
| R v Nicholls | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1911) 12 CLR 280 | Australia | Cited for the wealth of Commonwealth authority holding that an imputation of judicial impartiality or impropriety is not ipso facto scandalising contempt. |
| Attorney-General for New South Wales v Mundey | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [1972] 2 NSWLR 887 | Australia | Cited for the wealth of Commonwealth authority holding that an imputation of judicial impartiality or impropriety is not ipso facto scandalising contempt. |
| Attorney-General v Pang Cheng Lian | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1974–1976] SLR(R) 271 | Singapore | Cited as similar statements have been held to be contemptuous in other decisions. |
| Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Refers to the case where V K Rajah J reduced the sentence of the defendant. |
| Public Prosecutor v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Anor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2002] SGHC 240 | Singapore | Refers to the case where Vignes Mourthi was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death. |
| Vignes s/o Mourthi v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 105 | Singapore | Refers to the case where Vignes Mourthi was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death. |
| Public Prosecutor v S Rajkumar | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 77 | Singapore | Refers to the case where Sgt Rajkumar from the Central Narcotics Bureau was convicted on corruption offences. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Indian Contempt of Courts Act 1971 | India |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Scandalising contempt
- Real risk test
- Inherent tendency test
- Fair criticism
- Public confidence
- Administration of justice
- Judiciary
- Contempt of court
- Freedom of speech
15.2 Keywords
- contempt of court
- scandalising the judiciary
- freedom of speech
- Singapore
- Shadrake Alan
- Attorney-General
- judicial independence
- real risk test
- fair criticism
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 95 |
| Scandalising the judiciary | 90 |
| Freedom of speech | 50 |
| Constitutional Law | 40 |
| Criminal Law | 30 |
| Evidence Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Freedom of Speech
- Judicial Independence