Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General: Contempt of Court & Freedom of Expression
The Court of Appeal heard appeals from Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and Tan Liang Joo John against their conviction and sentence for scandalizing contempt of court, and cross-appeals from the Attorney-General against the Judge's refusal to grant an apology order and cease-publication injunction. The court dismissed Wham's and Tan's appeals, dismissed the Attorney-General's appeal regarding Tan, and allowed in part the Attorney-General's appeal regarding Wham by granting a cease-publication injunction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and Tan Liang Joo John for scandalizing contempt, affirming the importance of protecting the judiciary's integrity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Attorney-General | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Ho Jiayun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Senthilkumaran Sabapathy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seah Ee Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Liang Joo John | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ho Jiayun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Senthilkumaran Sabapathy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seah Ee Wei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Priscilla Chia | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Wham published a Facebook post stating that Malaysian judges are more independent than Singapore's for cases with political implications.
- Tan published a Facebook post stating that the Attorney-General's Chambers charging Wham confirms what Wham said was true.
- The Attorney-General initiated proceedings against Wham and Tan for scandalising contempt under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.
- Wham and Tan were convicted of scandalising contempt in the High Court.
- Wham's Facebook post remained online.
- Tan removed his Facebook post after the sentencing and costs hearing.
- Wham published further posts repeating the contemptuous content of his original post.
5. Formal Citations
- Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General and other appeals, Civil Appeals Nos 99, 108, 109 and 110 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 enacted | |
| Wham published a post on his Facebook profile | |
| The Attorney-General filed OS 510 | |
| Tan published a post on his Facebook profile | |
| The Attorney-General filed OS 537 | |
| The Judge granted both applications for leave | |
| Wham published a post on his Facebook profile | |
| The Attorney-General filed HC/SUM 2196/2018 and HC/SUM 2192/2018 | |
| The Judge heard these summonses | |
| Wham published a post on his Facebook profile | |
| Wham and Tan were convicted of scandalising contempt | |
| Wham published a post on his Facebook profile | |
| The Judge heard the parties on sentencing and costs | |
| Tan took down his post | |
| Wham and Tan were sentenced by the Judge | |
| Tan applied by way of HC/OS 911/2019 for a declaration | |
| Wham published a post on his Facebook profile | |
| Wham published a post on his Facebook profile | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for scandalising contempt, finding that the posts met the requirements of s 3(1)(a) of the AJPA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Imputing improper motives to the court
- Impugning the integrity of the court
- Risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
- Fair Criticism
- Outcome: The court found that the posts did not constitute fair criticism as there was no objective or rational basis for them.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Objective basis for criticism
- Rational basis for comparison
- Sentencing for Scandalising Contempt
- Outcome: The court affirmed the sentence of a $5,000 fine, with one week’s imprisonment in default, for both Wham and Tan.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Mitigating factors
- Aggravating factors
- Relevance of offender's intentions
- Impact on offender's career
- Apology Order
- Outcome: The court held that a mandated apology should only be considered in exceptional circumstances and declined to order an apology in this case.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Signalling function
- Educative function
- Corrective function
- Retribution
- Deterrence
- Cease-Publication Injunction
- Outcome: The court granted a cease-publication injunction in respect of Wham, requiring him to desist from future publication of his post and to take down that post.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Continuing publication
- Technical feasibility of removal
- Fading from public consciousness
8. Remedies Sought
- Order of Committal
- Fine
- Imprisonment
- Apology Order
- Cease-Publication Injunction
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Scandalising Contempt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Constitutional Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 222 | Singapore | Judge’s decisions on liability |
| Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 111 | Singapore | Judge’s decisions on sentence |
| Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 992 | Singapore | Provided a useful reference point for sentencing as that case likewise concerned publication on the Internet. |
| Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John and others | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132 | Singapore | Reference to a previous instance of scandalising contempt committed by Tan. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | The court was not bound to impose a custodial sentence simply because both sides submitted that this was appropriate |
| Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 778 | Singapore | This court’s elucidation of the common law “real risk” test |
| Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 MLJ 157 | Malaysia | One of the cases Wham claimed to have relied on for his post. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | One of the cases Wham claimed to have relied on for his post. |
| YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim v Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia, YB Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar & Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 6 MLJ 352 | Malaysia | One of the cases Wham claimed to have relied on for his post. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | One of the cases Wham claimed to have relied on for his post. |
| Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and another case | Federal Court | Yes | [2017] 3 MLJ 561 | Malaysia | One of the cases Wham claimed to have relied on for his post. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 112 | Singapore | One of the cases Wham claimed to have relied on for his post. |
| Tan Liang Joo John v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 263 | Singapore | Declined to grant the declaration on the basis that scandalising contempt was a form of criminal contempt |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Mentioned in relation to Wham's arguments on fair criticism. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1099 | Singapore | Reference to the offence of dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Yee Hua and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1106 | Singapore | Reference to the offence of road rage violence under s 323 of the Penal Code |
| Low Meng Chay v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 46 | Singapore | Default terms of imprisonment are intended to prevent evasion of the payment of fines imposed, not to punish those who are genuinely unable to pay. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 334 | Singapore | The offender should not be “place[d] in the position where he is able to simply pick and choose the terms on which he would like to be rehabilitated” |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | The type of sentence to be imposed in a given case is to be determined by the public interest to be protected |
| Li Shengwu v The Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 20 | Singapore | The modern law of contempt does not purport to attach such weight to the classification of civil and criminal contempt as would justify their different juridical treatment |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 15 r 16 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| s 12(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| s 12(3) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| s 9(d) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| Art 44(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Art 45(1)(e) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Art 45 of the Constitution | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Scandalising contempt
- Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016
- Facebook post
- Public confidence in the administration of justice
- Fair criticism
- Cease-publication injunction
- Apology order
- Mens rea
- Actus reus
- Continuing publication
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt of court
- Scandalising the judiciary
- Freedom of expression
- Social media
- Judicial independence
- Singapore
- Malaysia
- Attorney-General
- Administration of Justice (Protection) Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 95 |
| Scandalising the court | 90 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Constitutional Law | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Contempt of Court
- Freedom of Speech
- Judicial Independence
- Social Media
- Constitutional Law