Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General: Scandalising the Court & Freedom of Speech
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Au Wai Pang against the High Court's decision finding him guilty of scandalising the court. The charge stemmed from an article Au Wai Pang published on his blog, Yawning Bread, concerning the Supreme Court's handling of two cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the article posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice and did not constitute fair criticism.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal affirms conviction of Au Wai Pang for scandalising the court in his blog post about the Supreme Court's handling of s 377A challenges.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Teo Lu Jia of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Toh Puay San of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Au Wai Pang | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Teo Lu Jia | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elaine Liew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis Ng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Toh Puay San | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
| Peter Low | Peter Low LLC |
| Jason Lee Hong Jet | Peter Low LLC |
| Low Ying Li Christine | Peter Low LLC |
| Mannar Raj Kumar | Peter Low LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant published an article on his blog titled '377 wheels come off Supreme Court’s best-laid plans'.
- The article discussed the Supreme Court's handling of two cases challenging Section 377A of the Penal Code.
- The article suggested the Chief Justice and another judge deliberately delayed one case to influence another.
- The High Court found the appellant guilty of scandalising contempt for the article.
- The appellant appealed against his conviction.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 31 of 2015, [2015] SGCA 61
- Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang, , [2015] 2 SLR 352
- Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General, , [2013] 4 SLR 1059
- Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General, , [2013] 3 SLR 118
- Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General, , [2011] 3 SLR 778
- Dhooharika v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association intervening), , [2014] 3 WLR 1081
- Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter, , [2015] 1 SLR 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim Meng Suang case heard by Justice Quentin Loh | |
| Tan Eng Hong case heard by Justice Quentin Loh | |
| Judgment delivered in Lim Meng Suang case | |
| Mr. M Ravi applied to the High Court to be recognised as an interested party in the Court of Appeal hearing on the Lim Meng Suang case | |
| Judgment delivered in Tan Eng Hong case | |
| Appellant published the Article on the Blog | |
| Appellant published the Robinson’s Article on the Blog | |
| Hearing scheduled before the Court of Appeal for Lim Meng Suang case | |
| Prosecution filed an application for leave to apply for an order of committal against the Appellant | |
| Application for leave heard by the Judge | |
| Application for leave heard by the Judge | |
| Respondent filed Summons No 6209 of 2013, an application for the Appellant to be punished for his contempt of court in relation to the Article | |
| Respondent filed a notice of appeal against the Judge’s denial of leave in relation to the Robinson’s Article | |
| Appeal heard by the court | |
| Respondent applied to amend SUM 6209 so as to include an application for the Appellant to be punished for contempt in relation to the Robinson’s Article | |
| Application was allowed | |
| Summons No 6209 of 2013 (Amendment No 1) was filed | |
| Parties appeared before the Judge | |
| The Judge delivered the Judgment | |
| Appellant filed his notice of appeal | |
| Parties filed written submissions on sentence | |
| The Judge ordered a fine of $8,000 to be imposed on the Appellant | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court found that the Appellant's article constituted scandalising contempt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
- Intention to publish the statement
- Fair criticism
- Fair Criticism
- Outcome: The court found that the Appellant's article did not constitute fair criticism.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Rational basis for criticism
- Good faith
- Mens Rea for Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court affirmed the mens rea requirement as the intention to publish the statement, not the intention to undermine public confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to publish
- Intention to undermine public confidence
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Setting aside the fine
9. Cause of Actions
- Scandalising Contempt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- Law
- Media
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 352 | Singapore | The decision from which this appeal arose. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1059 | Singapore | Case involving a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which was allegedly delayed. |
| Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 118 | Singapore | Parallel case challenging the constitutional validity of 377A, allegedly expedited to influence Tan Eng Hong's case. |
| Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 778 | Singapore | Established the principles for scandalising contempt, including the 'real risk' test and mens rea. |
| Dhooharika v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association intervening) | Privy Council | Yes | [2014] 3 WLR 1081 | Mauritius | Addressed the mens rea requirement for scandalising contempt, which the Judge rejected in favor of the Shadrake approach. |
| Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 26 | Singapore | Addressed the appeals emanating from both Lim Meng Suang and Tan Eng Hong. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Scandalising contempt
- Section 377A
- Judicial independence
- Fair criticism
- Real risk
- Mens rea
- Actus reus
- Public confidence
- Administration of justice
- Best-laid plans
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt of court
- Freedom of speech
- Singapore
- Section 377A
- Judicial independence
- Scandalising contempt
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 70 |
| Constitutional Law | 50 |
| Civil Litigation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Constitutional Law
- Freedom of Speech
- Criminal Law