Attorney-General v Ravi Madasamy: Contempt of Court & Administration of Justice (Protection) Act
In Attorney-General v Ravi s/o Madasamy, the High Court of Singapore addressed applications by the Attorney-General for orders of committal against Mr. Ravi s/o Madasamy, an advocate and solicitor, for contempt of court. The applications stemmed from Mr. Ravi's conduct in two sets of proceedings in November 2021. The court found Mr. Ravi guilty of several allegations of contempt, including scandalizing the court, interrupting judges, and taking legal positions without client instructions. Mr. Ravi's defense of bipolar disorder was considered but did not absolve him of liability. The court reserved judgment on sentencing.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Mr. Ravi was found guilty of contempt of court for multiple allegations.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ravi Madasamy, a lawyer, was found guilty of contempt of court for multiple instances of misconduct, including accusing judges of bias.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magendran Muniandy | Other | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Respondent | Individual | Guilty of Contempt | Lost | |
| The Attorney-General | Applicant | Government Agency | Successful in part | Partial | Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Rimplejit Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Loo Yu Hao Adrian of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Li Dan | Other | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Chua Qwong Meng | Other | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| SBS Transit Ltd | Other | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rimplejit Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Loo Yu Hao Adrian | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Mr. Ravi accused District Judge Chay of being biased.
- Mr. Ravi interrupted District Judge Chay while he was speaking to Mr. Magendran.
- Mr. Ravi stated that District Judge Chay could be removed at will by the State.
- Mr. Ravi stated that District Judge Chay was in contempt of court and didn’t have security of tenure.
- Mr. Ravi accused Justice Audrey Lim of being biased.
- Mr. Ravi interrupted Justice Audrey Lim during a hearing.
- Mr. Ravi instructed a paralegal to send an email against his client's instructions.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General v Ravi s/o Madasamy and another matter, , [2023] SGHC 78
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Ravi appeared on behalf of Mr Magendran in SC 904600 | |
| Mr Ravi appeared before PDJ Toh in SC 901420 | |
| Mr Ravi did not turn up at 9.30am for the trial of SC 904600 before DJ Chay | |
| Mr Ravi filed an application for the case to be stated to the High Court under s 395(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | |
| Hearing started in S 699 before Justice Audrey Lim | |
| Mr Arun Kumar M Sadarangani sent an e-mail to the Registry | |
| The Registry sought clarification from K K Cheng LLC | |
| M/s Carson Law Chambers filed a notice of change of solicitor with the Registry | |
| Hearing on 29 November 2021 | |
| Affidavit of Rimplejit Kaur filed | |
| Affidavit of Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas filed | |
| Affidavit of Arun Kumar M Sadarangani filed | |
| Mr Ravi filed affidavits | |
| Written submissions filed by Mr Ravi's previous lawyers | |
| Hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Contempt of Court
- Outcome: Mr. Ravi was found guilty of several instances of contempt of court.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scandalising the court
- Interruption of court proceedings
- Insulting a judge
- Obstruction of justice
- Acting without client instructions
- Fair Criticism
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Ravi's statements did not constitute fair criticism.
- Category: Substantive
- Mental Disorder as a Mitigating Factor
- Outcome: The court acknowledged Mr. Ravi's bipolar disorder but ruled that it did not absolve him of liability. The court invited further submissions on whether it should be a relevant factor for sentencing.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order of committal for contempt of court
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 778 | Singapore | Cited to define the 'real risk' test for scandalising contempt, which was later modified by the AJPA. |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 804 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the 'risk' test under s 3(1)(a) of the AJPA and the relevance of content and context in assessing contemptuous statements. |
| Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 992 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the contemnor need not intend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. |
| Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John and others | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fair criticism. |
| Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 837 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the importance of lawyers being truthful about their clients’ instructions to the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 52 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| Rules 13(2) and 13(3) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 10(1) and 10(2) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (No 19 of 2016) | Singapore |
| s 395(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 3(6) of the AJPA | Singapore |
| s 8(3) of the AJPA | Singapore |
| s 8(2) of the AJPA | Singapore |
| s 28 of the AJPA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contempt of court
- Scandalising the court
- Bias
- Interruption of court proceedings
- Insulting a judge
- Obstruction of justice
- Administration of Justice (Protection) Act
- Bipolar disorder
- Security of tenure
- Legal professional privilege
15.2 Keywords
- Contempt
- Court
- Judge
- Bias
- Lawyer
- Singapore
- Madasamy
- Attorney-General
- Justice
- Legal
- Proceedings
- Trial
- Hearing
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contempt of Court | 95 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 70 |
| Civil Practice | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
| Evidence Law | 15 |
| Criminal Law | 10 |
| Judicial Review | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contempt of Court