Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan: Contempt of Court Sentencing

The High Court of Singapore heard the sentencing of Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and Tan Liang Joo John, who were convicted of scandalising contempt of court for their respective Facebook posts. The Attorney-General sought fines and orders for apologies and removal of the posts. The court fined both Wham and Tan SGD 5,000 each, declining to order apologies or removal of the posts. The judgment was delivered by Justice Woo Bih Li on 29 April 2019.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Both respondents were fined.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment on Sentence

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sentencing judgment for Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and Tan Liang Joo John for scandalising contempt. Both were fined for their Facebook posts.

1.7 Decision Date

28 April 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
The Attorney-General	Applicant	Government Agency	Costs awarded	Partial	Senthilkumaran Sabapathy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sheryl Janet George of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan	Respondent	Individual	Fine imposed	Lost	Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Choo Zheng Xi of Peter Low & Choo LLC Priscilla Chia Wen Qi of Peter Low & Choo LLC
Tan Liang Joo John	Respondent	Individual	Fine imposed	Lost	Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Senthilkumaran Sabapathy	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Francis Ng	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sheryl Janet George	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP
Choo Zheng Xi	Peter Low & Choo LLC
Priscilla Chia Wen Qi	Peter Low & Choo LLC

4. Facts

Wham posted on Facebook that Malaysian judges are more independent than Singaporean judges in cases with political implications.
Tan posted on Facebook, sharing Wham's post and stating that the Attorney-General's Chambers charging Wham confirms what he said was true.
The Attorney-General brought proceedings against Wham and Tan for scandalising contempt of court.
Wham and Tan were convicted of scandalising contempt under s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.
The Attorney-General sought fines, orders for apologies, and removal of the posts.
Tan removed his post from Facebook after the hearing but before the judgment.
Tan argued that a fine of SGD 2,000 or more would disqualify him from being a Member of Parliament.

5. Formal Citations

Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter, Originating Summonses Nos 510 and 537 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 111

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-04-27	Wham's post published on Facebook
2018-10-08	Wham published further post on Facebook
2018-10-09	Wham published further post on Facebook
2018-10-09	Wham and Tan convicted of scandalising contempt
2018-10-30	Tan’s Submissions on Sentence and Costs
2019-03-20	Hearing on appropriate sentences for Wham and Tan
2019-03-20	Tan removed his post from his Facebook profile
2019-03-21	Tan’s counsel sent letter to court
2019-04-29	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court found both respondents guilty of scandalising contempt and imposed fines.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 1 SLR 992
  - [2011] 3 SLR 778
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132
Appropriate Sentence for Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court determined that a fine of SGD 5,000 was appropriate for both respondents, considering their culpability, remorse, and prior record.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 3 SLR 778
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132
  - [1985-1986] SLR(R) 476
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103
Order to Publish Notice of Apology
- Outcome: The court declined to order either respondent to publish a notice of apology.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1977] 72 DLR (3d) 95
Order to Remove Contemptuous Post
- Outcome: The court declined to order Wham to remove his post, and the issue was moot for Tan as he had already removed his post.
- Category: Procedural
Disqualification for Membership of Parliament
- Outcome: The court held that the potential political consequences for Tan were irrelevant to sentencing.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 5 SLR 755
  - [1993] 1 SLR(R) 46
  - [2016] SGDC 220
  - [2014] 3 SLR 180

8. Remedies Sought

Fine
Order to publish a notice to apologise
Order to remove contemptuous post
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Scandalising Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 992	Singapore	Cited as a relevant sentencing precedent for scandalising contempt, particularly concerning online publications.
Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 222	Singapore	Cited for the circumstances of how the respondents committed scandalising contempt.
Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 778	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing guidelines for the offence of scandalising contempt.
Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John and others	High Court	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132	Singapore	Cited for sentencing guidelines or factors in the context of contempt proceedings.
Attorney-General v Zimmerman Fred and others	High Court	Yes	[1985-1986] SLR(R) 476	Singapore	Cited for sentencing guidelines or factors in the context of contempt proceedings.
Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel and others	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 1103	Singapore	Cited for sentencing guidelines or factors in the context of contempt proceedings.
Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 142	Singapore	Cited in relation to issuing a prohibitory injunction in defamation cases.
Re Ouellet (Nos 1 and 2)	Quebec Court of Appeal	Yes	[1977] 72 DLR (3d) 95	Canada	Cited regarding the usefulness of compelling a contemnor to apologise.
Low Meng Chay v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 46	Singapore	Cited regarding imposing a custodial sentence when a fine would be unusually harsh.
Public Prosecutor v Amzad Hossen Shajidul Haque	District Court	Yes	[2016] SGDC 220	Singapore	Cited regarding imposing a custodial sentence when a fine would be unusually harsh.
Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 755	Singapore	Cited regarding the irrelevance of collateral consequences to sentencing.
Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 180	Singapore	Cited regarding imposing a custodial sentence when a fine would be unusually harsh.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 52 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 3(1)(a)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 10(1)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 12(1)(a)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 12(3)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 12(2)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 12(4)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 12(5)	Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 s 9(d)	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 45(1)(e)	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 45(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Scandalising contempt
Contempt of court
Facebook post
Sentencing
Apology
Injunction
Disqualification
Member of Parliament

15.2 Keywords

Contempt
Scandalising
Facebook
Singapore
Court
Sentence
Fine

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	95
Sentencing	80
Civil Procedure	50

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Sentencing
Criminal Law