Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang: Scandalising Contempt and Freedom of Speech
In Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang, the Singapore High Court addressed committal proceedings brought by the Attorney-General against Au Wai Pang concerning two blog articles alleged to scandalise the Supreme Court by imputing bias against homosexuals. The court, with Belinda Ang Saw Ean J presiding, found Au Wai Pang guilty of scandalising contempt for the first article but not the second, emphasizing the need to balance freedom of speech with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The Respondent was found guilty of scandalising contempt in respect of the First Article but not the Second Article.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on scandalising contempt, examining the balance between freedom of speech and public confidence in the judiciary.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Applicant | Government Agency | Partial | Partial | Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Au Wai Pang | Respondent | Individual | Guilty of scandalising contempt in respect of the First Article | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tai Wei Shyong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elaine Liew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
| Peter Low | Peter Low LLC |
| Raj Mannar | Peter Low LLC |
| Christine Low | Peter Low LLC |
4. Facts
- The Attorney-General brought committal proceedings against Au Wai Pang for contempt of court.
- The proceedings concerned two articles published on Au Wai Pang's blog.
- The articles allegedly imputed bias on the part of the Supreme Court against homosexuals.
- The first article concerned two High Court cases on the constitutionality of s 377A of the Penal Code.
- The second article concerned civil cases brought by Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San against Robinson & Company.
- The Attorney-General argued the articles undermined public confidence in the Singapore judiciary.
- Au Wai Pang argued the articles constituted fair criticism and were written in good faith.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang, Originating Summons No 1098 of 2013 (Summons No 6209 of 2013), [2015] SGHC 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Article posted on the Yawning Bread blog | |
| Second Article posted on the Yawning Bread blog | |
| Wee filed a separate set of proceedings in Originating Summons No 763 of 2013 | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Appeal to this decision in Civil Appeal No 31 of 2015 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court found the Respondent guilty of scandalising contempt in respect of the First Article.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Undermining public confidence in the judiciary
- Imputing bias on the part of the court
- Fair criticism vs. contemptuous statement
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 778
- Freedom of Speech
- Outcome: The court recognized the tension between freedom of speech and the administration of justice, viewing scandalising contempt as a reasonable limit on freedom of speech.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Balancing freedom of speech with the administration of justice
- Reasonable limits on freedom of speech
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 778
- Mens Rea for Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court held that the mens rea required is the intention to publish the article, not the intention to undermine public confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to publish vs. intention to undermine public confidence
- Good faith as an element of fair criticism
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 778
- [2014] 3 WLR 1081
8. Remedies Sought
- Committal Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
- Scandalising the Court
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Constitutional Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 778 | Singapore | Leading local authority on the law of scandalising contempt. Defines the offence and its purpose in protecting the administration of justice. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that contempt of court is not intended to protect the dignity of judges but to protect the public interest. |
| Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1974] AC 273 | United Kingdom | Cited to support the importance of maintaining the authority of the courts for the pacific settlement of disputes and the maintenance of law and order. |
| Gallagher v Durack | High Court of Australia | Yes | 152 CLR 238 | Australia | Cited to justify the continued existence of the offence of scandalising contempt to maintain public confidence in the courts. |
| Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 445 | Singapore | Cited for the enunciation of the mens rea required for the offence of scandalising contempt. |
| Dhooharika v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association intervening) | Privy Council | Yes | [2014] 3 WLR 1081 | Mauritius | Discussed in relation to the mens rea required for scandalising contempt, but distinguished based on local circumstances and constitutional context. |
| Morelle Ld v Wakeling and Another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1955] 2 QB 379 | United Kingdom | Cited for the traditional formulation of a per incuriam decision. |
| Goh Cheng Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 660 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the per incuriam rule is inapplicable vis-à-vis decisions of a court of superior jurisdiction. |
| Indo Commercial Society (Pte) Ltd v Ebrahim and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 667 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the per incuriam rule is inapplicable vis-à-vis decisions of a court of superior jurisdiction. |
| See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 284 | Singapore | Cited for the general proposition that the per incuriam rule is inapplicable vis-à-vis decisions of a court of superior jurisdiction. |
| State v Van Niekerk | Supreme Court | Yes | [1970] 3 SA 655 (T) | South Africa | Discussed in relation to the mens rea required for scandalising contempt. |
| Attorney-General v Lingle and others | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 199 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requisite mens rea was the intention to publish the impugned material. |
| Solicitor-General v Radio Avon Ltd and Another | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [1978] 1 NZLR 225 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that the requisite mens rea was the intention to publish the impugned material. |
| Gilbert Ahnee and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions | Privy Council | Yes | [1999] 2 AC 294 | Mauritius | Discussed in relation to the mens rea required for scandalising contempt. |
| Reg v Gray | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1900] 2 QB 36 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle of the right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. |
| Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobage | Privy Council | Yes | [1936] AC 322 | Trinidad and Tobago | Cited for the principle of the right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. |
| Badry v Director of Public Prosecution | Privy Council | Yes | [1983] 2 AC 297 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle of the right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1885) 29 Ch D 459 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the state of a man's mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion. |
| Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim and Others | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2012) 293 ALR 384 | Australia | Cited for the principle that publication of material on the Internet is a continuing act. |
| News Digital Media Pty Ltd and Another v Mokbel and Another | Court of Appeal of Victoria | Yes | [2010] 30 VR 248 | Australia | Cited for the principle that contempt occurs when the administration of justice is exposed to risk, whether or not the risk actually materialises. |
| Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider in determining whether there is bad faith. |
| Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103 | Singapore | Cited for the collective reading approach, but distinguished. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 52 r 2(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 7(1) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) s 8(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 377A | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 14 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 15 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 14 | Singapore |
| Employment Act | Singapore |
| Employment Act Sections 84(3) and (4) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Scandalising contempt
- Freedom of speech
- Public confidence
- Administration of justice
- Fair criticism
- Mens rea
- Real risk test
- Judicial independence
- Good faith
- Bias
- Homosexuality
- Article 377A
- Judiciary
- Impartiality
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt of court
- Scandalising the court
- Freedom of speech
- Judicial independence
- Singapore
- Homosexuality
- Bias
- Public confidence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Scandalising the court | 95 |
| Contempt of Court | 90 |
| Constitutional Law | 60 |
| Freedom of speech | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Law of Contempt
- Constitutional Rights
- Freedom of Expression
- Judicial Review