Attorney-General v Ravi s/o Madasamy: Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Decision on Misconduct
The Attorney-General filed an Originating Summons seeking review of the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision that the first charge against Ravi s/o Madasamy, regarding alleged misconduct during a live interview with The Online Citizen Asia, was not made out. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed the originating summons, finding that the statements made by Ravi s/o Madasamy constituted fair criticism and did not necessarily imply malice or bad faith on the part of the Prosecution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Legal Profession
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Attorney-General sought review of a Disciplinary Tribunal's decision regarding Ravi s/o Madasamy's alleged misconduct. The court dismissed the review application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Lost | Lee Hui Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeyendran Jeyapal of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| The Law Society of Singapore | Defendant | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Defendant | Individual | Charge Not Made Out | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Hui Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeyendran Jeyapal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Guo Zheng, Titus | WongPartnership LLP |
| Hamza Zafar Malik | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- The AG filed an OS seeking review of the DT’s decision that the 1st Charge against Ravi was not made out.
- The complaint pertained to a live interview Ravi gave to TOC Asia after the Court of Appeal delivered its oral judgment in criminal review proceedings.
- Ravi allegedly made false and/or misleading allegations, intending to convey that the PP and/or the AG had acted in bad faith.
- The Court of Appeal observed that the Prosecution’s change in case was “ultimately prejudicial” to Gobi.
- The DT found that the 1st Charge had not been made out, but the 2nd to 4th Charges were made out.
- The AG submitted that the DT had erred in finding that the 1st Charge was not made out.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General v Ravi s/o Madasamy and another, Originating Summons No 41 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 180
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Gobi was arrested on suspicion of possessing a prohibited drug. | |
| The High Court found Gobi had rebutted the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA. | |
| The Court of Appeal accepted the PP’s submissions and convicted Gobi on the original capital charge. | |
| The Court of Appeal issued its judgment in Adili. | |
| The first defendant filed CA/CM 1/2020 seeking leave to review its earlier decision in Gobi (CA). | |
| The Court of Appeal granted leave to Gobi to file a review application. | |
| The first defendant filed CA/CM 3/2020 for the Court of Appeal to review its decision in Gobi (CA). | |
| The Court of Appeal set aside Gobi’s conviction on the Capital Charge and delivered brief grounds of its judgment. | |
| The first defendant gave an interview to TOC Asia. | |
| The AGC wrote a letter to the first defendant. | |
| The first defendant uploaded AGC’s Letter in a Facebook post. | |
| The first defendant wrote to the AGC. | |
| The DT was constituted to inquire into the AG’s complaint. | |
| The Disciplinary Tribunal’s findings and determination was made. | |
| The Law Society forwarded the DT’s determination on the Complaint to the AGC. | |
| The AG received the Council’s decision on the DT’s determination. | |
| The AG filed the Originating Summons. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Review of Disciplinary Tribunal’s Decision
- Outcome: The court considered whether the Disciplinary Tribunal erred in finding that the first charge against the first defendant was not made out.
- Category: Procedural
- Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
- Outcome: The court found that the Interview Statements did not necessarily imply that the Prosecution had acted with malice, in bad faith or improperly.
- Category: Substantive
- Fair Criticism
- Outcome: The court agreed with the DT that the Interview Statements constituted fair criticism.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 778
- [2015] 2 SLR 352
- [2011] 2 SLR 445
- Extension of Time to Bring Application
- Outcome: The court held that the AG was not out of time for bringing the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 874
- [2021] 2 SLR 1013
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision
- Determination that the 1st Charge is made out
- Order directing the AG to make an application under s 98 of the LPA
9. Cause of Actions
- Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Gobi a/l Avedian | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 145 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's finding that Gobi had rebutted the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gobi a/l Avedian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal's acceptance of the PP’s submissions and disagreement with the High Court’s finding that the s 18(2) presumption had been rebutted. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal's clarification that wilful blindness could not be the subject of the presumption under s 18(1) MDA. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal's written judgment on Gobi's case, highlighting the Prosecution's change in case and the prejudice caused to Gobi. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal’s clarifications on when s 97 of the LPA is triggered. |
| Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1013 | Singapore | Cited for the point that there is no strict impediment to making a s 97 application once the Council has conveyed the DT’s determination. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited in Review Judgment for alluding to the importance of the Prosecution running a consistent case. |
| Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 778 | Singapore | Cited for the concept of fair criticism in the context of contempt of court proceedings. |
| Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 352 | Singapore | Cited for the point that any rational basis must have been accurately stated. |
| Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 445 | Singapore | Cited for the point that it was not necessary to establish an unassailable basis for the criticism made. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | Cited for the reasoning that costs should ordinarily not be ordered against unsuccessful public bodies performing regulatory functions. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Chia Ti Lik alias Xie Zhili | Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2011] SGDT 4 | Singapore | Cited for ascertaining the meaning of the Interview Statements. |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and anor v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for ascertaining the meaning of the Interview Statements. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| s 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 97(4)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 97(4)(b)(i) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 98 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 98(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 97(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7 read with s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33(1) read with Second Schedule of the MDA | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the MDA | Singapore |
| s 18(1) MDA | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394I of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 11(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Originating Summons
- Interview Statements
- Fair criticism
- Misconduct
- Public Prosecutor
- Attorney-General
- Legal Profession Act
15.2 Keywords
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Legal Profession
- Misconduct
- Attorney-General
- Advocate
- Solicitor
- Judicial Review
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 90 |
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Duty of Candour | 40 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
| Evidence | 30 |
| Criminal Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Judicial Review