K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 69 of 92.
“The Police conduct enforcement operations regularly to deter and detect such activities. Over the past year, the Police have conducted anti-vice operations in several places, including around heartland parks in Woodlands and Punggol. Two sex workers were arrested at Woodlands Town Garden in October 2015 and 21 persons, comprising 13 men and eight sex workers, were arrested at Punggol Waterway Park in November 2015. Besides enforcement, the Police also work with grassroots leaders and other Government agencies, such as the Singapore Land Authority, to deter persons from entering forested areas to conduct such activities. These measures include improving lighting conditions, installing closed-circuit television cameras and enhancing patrols and enforcement checks in the area. For the two-year period from January 2014 to December 2015, Police's investigations involving the sex workers arrested at makeshift brothels did not reveal any evidence of trafficking in persons (TIP) offences. These foreign sex workers are recruited by operators in their home countries and come to Singapore to engage in this work voluntarily. The Police have set up a dedicated team of specialist officers to investigate sex trafficking cases. Besides the Police, frontline officers and support staff from other relevant Government agencies have been trained on the procedures and case management approach for TIP cases. Suspected TIP victims will be referred to shelters and given appropriate assistance.”
“My understanding – and I do not want to misstate it – my understanding is that the questions related to putting in statutory form the law of contempt and if you look at it, we are now setting it out in writing. So, that was the context. I think there was majority support. [(proc text) Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." (proc text)]”
“I am glad that the Member asked that. We did a scientifically valid statistical survey and a very substantial majority – the thing is, I do not have the survey with me right now – supported it. And I do not want to quote the figures because I cannot remember the figures. But it was a survey conducted by us and the results of the survey were that we had substantial support.”
“As for the rest who want to discuss matters of public interest in good faith, I do not see why there should be any chilling effect. In fact, the law is set out in writing, whereas, yesterday, it was not.”
“The law yesterday was unlimited. The law tomorrow will limit the penalties. That is a difference. From unlimited, it is now limited. And it was a point made by former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. It is a point made in various jurisdictions that the law should limit and set out the maximum penalties as opposed to leaving it unlimited. Second, it is not correct to say, and I have made the point a number of times, that the penalties provided are at variance with the penalties that the Courts have imposed. You are looking at one type of case, but there are many other types of contempt. If I were to ask any reasonable person here, going back to my example just now, $100 million and there is an injunction and the defendant takes out $50 million in breach of the injunction and he is brought to Court, what do you think the penalty ought to be? Five thousand dollars? Supposing a penalty is imposed, he goes away and then he takes away another $25 million. What do you think the penalty ought to be? So, do you think eight months was excessive for the recalcitrant in the Family Courts? That was the law yesterday. How is this penalty, the maximum penalty that is prescribed here, at substantial variance with that eight months? So, it is not accurate to say it is at variance. The difference is that previously, it was unlimited. Today, if the Bill is passed, once it comes into force, it will be limited. That is a change to be welcomed. As for this chilling effect, well, it will have a chilling effect on those who would constitutionally want to stand up every day and say that the judge is biased. But it would have had that same chilling effect yesterday as well.”
“I have explained it in extenso . My last explanation to Nominated Member Kok Heng Leun stands. I think I have covered the question.”
“Mr Kok, I will answer your question in this way. Look at clause 3(4), a statement made by a person on behalf of the Government and so on. If the Government believes that such a statement is necessary in the public interest, so you got to show that the Government believes that it is necessary in the public interest. You have got to show what the public interest is, and that it is necessary, and that the Government believed it. Belief, necessary, public interest. I am just using that passage in Justice Choor Singh's case as an aid – if it is apparent that the statements were really calculated to prejudice the ongoing proceedings but the Government is coming to Court and saying that, "I am actually saying it because it is in the public interest and I believe it to be so", then, the Court can make a finding that the Government did not really believe. There is case law on how the Courts arrive at such findings and one has got to go back to those things. Ultimately, the Government's exercise of this power and most powers derive from statutes. The Courts are the ultimate arbiters of a statutory interpretation and whether the Government's exercise of the powers come within that provision. The Courts will have to look carefully at the clause and see whether the Government comes within, or outside.”
“It is more the question of speed, Mr Tan, because, nowadays, when something is put up, it can travel at lightning speed all over. The AG may have to move very quickly to go to Court. A recalcitrant defendant, first of all, can play games in terms of avoiding service, avoiding coming to Court and try and delay the matter for weeks sometimes. So, you need to be practical about it and balance both sides' interests. What is the best way of balancing the interests? On the one side, irreparable damage being caused by the publication being on and being circulated. On the other side, the defendant's right to be heard. You balance that by first giving the AG a quick right to go to Court and get an order if he can satisfy the Court, prima facie. Then, you balance it by giving the defendant the right after he receives the order and takes it down, or he can choose, if he says, "I am going to challenge it, I am not in contempt", then he comes to Court and he challenges. If he succeeds, he puts it back up. So, what is the loss? You have got to look at it like that. Whereas, if you do not allow the quick remedy, interim relief, that article could be there for weeks by which point in time, there is no point taking it down anyway.”
“I was not suggesting that we have been collecting feedback over six years. We have been talking to people but it was really in the back burner in terms of leaving it to AGC to draft and I explained why it was not something that we pushed. Other legislation − changes in Criminal Procedure Code, changes in the Penal Code, they were all important because they make a change to the law. This one is essentially a codification of the law, subject to those changes. And, therefore, it was not essential or necessary for us to rush with it. We took our time and when we drafted it. We took the views of the people that I had listed. I do not suggest that is comprehensive and some of the feedback is − people when they give us the feedback, they expect us to keep it to ourselves. They expect us not to circulate. Some of the feedback, I think we could consider putting it up but, essentially, we took the approach, we took the view that the Bill − if you look at three of the four heads – it is the same. If you look at most of the other things, it is the same. And people would welcome it.”
“When was the Bill circulated publicly? Look, I cannot remember but I assume it was circulated publicly probably after the First Reading but I cannot be sure. I stand corrected. Do I agree that there is much room for public consultation given the negative feedback that it has generated? I think I do not agree with all the different parts of that question. First of all, I think, and as a lawyer, you would know sometimes it is better to ask a single question, not three questions together. On the negative feedback, we have done surveys. A vast majority of the population supports the Bill. People have tried putting up a Petition. I think you know the number of people who signed it − 249, as far as I can tell. We have to make a judgement call on what "public interest" is. And even if people think that something is not correct, then we have the duty to go out and persuade and explain. This Bill has, first of all, as I have been pointing out at various times, no substantive impact on the law. We are essentially crystallising the existing law except for the one change in the substantive law on contempt and some of the changes in process. I do not believe if you tell the truth and you explain it as it is, I do not think there will be negative reaction. But if you go and tell people, "you know, your rights are going to be curbed, that democracy is under attack, do you know that the law substantially curbs your freedom", if you say all those things and they do not read the Bill, of course, then they will get concerned. So, I agree in so far as there is any suggestion in your question that we have to go out and persuade people on what the Bill really involves, which we will try. Why not circulate the feedback collected over six years? I think you misunderstood my answer.”
“I did not take down. Can I know what the second question was, please?”
“First of all, this law cannot relate to anything that happened before tomorrow. So, the question is moot. Second, did The Online Citizen commit contempt? That question has to be answered by reference to the law in place in March which is going to be the same law in place tomorrow. Whether they are in contempt, I should not be giving legal advice from the table. But what I can say, as a matter of policy, is that the law has not changed. If what they did was contempt, that is for the AG to consider. If you have put in a question on that, if public policy considerations allow an answer – because sometimes we should not be answering if the AG is considering the matter – but subject to that, I will be happy to answer. This law does not change the position nor will it apply to what has happened in the past.”
“Well, if you want to make that point, please go ahead and make it, but those are the facts. The Police are the people who always investigate offences. You can argue as to whether it should be arrestable or non-arrestable. That is a different point. That is a process issue.”
“A number of situations have been investigated by the Police on the directions of AG. The general provisions allow the Police because it is a criminal offence. I am not saying it is arrestable. It is not specified in CPC as an arrestable offence. The Member is asking two different questions. First of all, who can investigate? Any offence can only be investigated by the Police. Take Attorney-General vs Lingle. I argued that case. The Police investigated. The Police went in and took all the documents. And that was, if I am not wrong, 1995. Take the Wall Street Journal case, 1989. I argued it. The Police were involved. The Police handled investigations. I handled contempt cases for nearly 25 years. When there is contempt, the AG gets involved, he asks the Police. But, here, now, we are setting it out in writing and as we set it out in writing, we have made it an arrestable offence, like other arrestable offences but —”
“Next, in terms of the Thaipusam case, I do not know what the relevance is, because if Ms Sylvia Lim believes that what I have said was contempt, please file the case with the AG. Let us not debate the merits of what I said. I believe what I said was not contempt and I do not believe that what I said caused prejudice or a real risk of prejudice to anyone's trial. If you believe otherwise, file it but certainly do not link this Bill with that because the genesis of this Bill was six years ago, well before the Thaipusam case, and 2012 and 2013. If I had committed contempt, this Bill is not going to save me because the contempt has already been committed. This law takes effect from tomorrow if we pass it today.”
“Let me deal with that. Clause 3(4) read with Justice Choor Singh's judgment. If you look at clause 3(4), what does it say? A statement made by a person on behalf of the Government is not contempt if the Government believes that such a statement is necessary in the public interest. The Government has got to show that it believes that such a statement is necessary. So, if challenged, the Government would have to show that. Justice Choor Singh said if a statement is calculated to prejudice the proceedings, then the Minister would be liable for contempt. The two are tied together. If a statement is calculated to affect, prejudice proceedings, how can the Government show that it believes that the statement is necessary in the public interest if it is calculated to interfere and prejudice proceedings? Well, Ms Lim, that is my view and I have stated it. I think clause 3(4) is clear. I do not think the law is that all that the Government has got to show is that it believes. As with any other governmental power, ultimately, that is also a subject for the Court to rule on as to whether the Government's belief, Government's statement that it believes is accurate or whether the statement, in fact, had a different motive and a different reason and was intended to prejudice the proceedings. If we come within the rubric of what Justice Choor Singh had said, that if you make a statement calculated to prejudice on-going proceedings, that will take the Government out of clause 3(4). Ultimately, the Courts interpret clause 3(4). You look at all the cases in the past as to what the Government has got to show. The Courts will give considerable deference to what the Government states but, ultimately, they decide. The Courts decide.”
“Finding of facts, as provided for in this Bill, requires the Court to make those findings. The AG cannot go and say, "Look, give me the order. I do not need to satisfy you of anything." If he can say that, you are right. But that is not what the clause says. You have said the Bill gives the Government the power to be the sole interpreter of public interest. But I spent a fair bit of time explaining to the Nominated Members how that clause is to be interpreted. And I said this was discussed with the Supreme Court. I did not have to disclose it but I put it on record. I said that the Courts are the ultimate arbiters as to whether the power of the Executive was exercised in accordance with the clause. So, one has got to go back and look at the rubric and decide. And then, you have made the suggestion of the Internal Security Act. I was wondering when that would come up. But I can tell you I have not seen any powers of detention without trial in this Bill.”
“Clause 3 says for the kind of contempt you are talking about, people sit with each other and sit in a coffee shop and say, "That fellow is guilty", and they say that over a beer. But clause 3(1)(b) says you also got to show real risk of prejudicing the proceedings. You have forgotten that. It shows that you must either prejudice or show a real risk of prejudice. So, how does a person sitting in a coffee shop in Hougang saying that something is wrong in the Courts, how does that statement impact on either the judge or the witnesses or the proceedings? I mean, it is just commonsense. I have given you one example where it can impact. You catch hold of a witness, you bring him to the coffee shop and you threaten him, yes, it is publication and it is interference of the proceedings. You then said, referring to the powers of the AG, that the Court "must". But you have not read the rest of it. The AG has got to prove a number of things. All factual matters. And who do you think decides on whether the AG has shown or has not shown those things? The Courts. The AG has got to go there to the Courts and show this, this, this, all these conditions have been satisfied, prima facie, and then the Court has got to decide. If it decides that it does not agree with the AG, it throws him out. And if it decides that it agrees with the AG, then it says, "Okay, I give you the order". Then, the other side is entitled to come back to Court and say, "You know, you have not heard everything. I have a side of the story and this is my story." And if the Court agrees with the respondent, what do you think happens? The order is set aside. So, who is the boss? The Courts control the proceedings. The Constitution provides that judicial power is vested in our Courts.”
“Let us start with the first point, which I think is quite conclusive, because what Mr Low says is that he is not convinced by me. On the face of it, it looks like he is disagreeing, but then that leaves only two interpretations. Either I am right about what the Bill says or I am wrong. He thinks I am wrong. But if I am right, then none of his arguments can stand. Therefore, I think that is the most conclusive point in the debate so far: I am right. And I am right because – Mr Low, you are not a lawyer – you look at the three heads of contempt. In clause 3, they set out the current law. You disagree that they do. I am unable to take it further because you disagree without telling me why they are different, whereas I have taken some trouble to explain to you why they are the same. As for the fourth head of contempt, I have said it is a change and I have explained the change. I have explained how it affects very few people and I have not heard anything else from you. So, I think, in a way, that it is conclusive, because, if I am right, the Bill makes no change, then you cannot have any objection. But you can have an objection if you believe that I am wrong. So, this is a strange case where a Member of Parliament says the Minister for Law who puts up the Bill, after extensive consultation with the Courts and who says ad nauseam that the law is the same and is intended to be the same, and the argument is, "I do not believe you, I do not trust you, I think you are trying to make a change." How do I argue that point? Second, you made that point by reference to specific points. One is publication; it applies to publication to one person and, therefore, coffee shop. But, Mr Low, you cannot just look at one clause on publication. Publication to what? And you go back to clause 3.”
“The Courts decide. So, please, let us not misrepresent the Bill. We can have disagreements on points of principle, judgement calls, but let us not go out and say things which are completely inaccurate about what the Bill does and does not do. Dr Tan Wu Meng asked me about the Government making statements and whether it is subject to the Court. Dr Tan, yes, I think you heard me.”
“The Government's statements are carefully drafted with advice from the AG to try and not prejudice ongoing proceedings. This has been going on since time immemorial. In Lau Swee Soong's case, the statements were a little bit more direct than the usual Government statements. But I confirm for the record that Courts are the final arbiters. They have to be the final arbiters if the rule of law has got any meaning. Whatever our Minister says, whatever a Government agency says, ultimately, you apply, you look at the clause and you see whether the statement comes within the clause. This was specifically discussed between us and the Supreme Court and I put that on record. So, it makes great buzz when Mr Low says all the people in the coffee shop, they are all now going to commit contempt, ordinary people; whereas the Government can say what it likes; untrue and untrue. There is a third point Mr Low makes. In the whole process, the Courts have become an assistant to the Government; untrue again. The AG, if he believes that there is contempt committed today, has to apply to charge the person. That means he says that you have committed an offence and he charges you. This law, in fact, allows greater flexibility. What it says is, you do not have to charge in every single case. Instead of charging, what you do is, you go and apply to the Court, and you try and persuade the Court that there is contempt and the person should take it down. Who is the boss? The Court is the boss. The Court decides whether or not AG satisfies the Court. And if the Court disagrees, it tells the AG, go away. Second, he gets the order. He serves it on the person who has published. The person who has published is not happy. He can go back to Court and say this is not contempt. Who decides?”
“But if you sit with your friends and talk to them about a case, how do you think it impacts on any case? Give me an answer, somebody. Let us get real. Mr Low also said that the Government can say whatever it likes and the Courts cannot do anything. Completely untrue. Under our system of law, the Courts are the final arbiters of any provision of the law. The Government has got to act in accordance with the law. Mr Kok Heng Leun, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Assoc Prof Mahdev Mohan and others asked me. I confirm that. What Justice Choor Singh said – if a Minister stands up and speaks about a particular case in a manner calculated to prejudice the proceedings and if he does it in bad faith, then I think he will be committing contempt and the AG will be entitled to commence proceedings. Again, in real terms, what that sub-clause provides is no different from what is happening today and what has been happening all along. Let me give Members examples. I told you about bank runs; I told you about hospital incidents. The last hospital incident, there was an inquiry. The Government came out and made statements. At that time, it was entirely possible, in fact, Coroner's inquiries were going to take place. Nevertheless, the Government came out and made statements. Did anyone here think that was wrong? Does anyone think that the Government should not make those statements? Would it be tenable not to say anything? Let us take a different example. Let us say a couple of people get killed in an accident involving a public transport company. There will be legal proceedings. But can the Government wait until then to come out and say what it knows, what has happened, what actions it has taken? We just keep quiet? A few people died and nothing is said? Is that the way the Government can function?”
“But underlying it all, the fundamental point to remember is when looking at this Bill tomorrow, Tuesday, assuming the Bill gets passed into Act today, the law is essentially the same. Some processes, additional processes, are there but the law is essentially the same. I say that and look anybody into the eye and say that. If anyone says that that is not true, tell me. We took into account the feedback received before the First Reading of the Bill and I have to say we made a number of amendments based on the feedback. As regards what was set out by Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH), the article published in REACH invited readers to share their views on the Bill. But a number of consultations had taken place before the First Reading. Mr Low Thia Khiang made a fairly impassioned speech but I have to say the entire speech seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what the Bill is all about because everything the Member has said is factually untrue and I will explain why. The Member raised the spectre that ordinary citizens sitting in a coffee shop talking will be charged with contempt. Does one honestly believe that? How does ordinary citizens sitting in a coffee shop having a beer and talking about a case pose a real risk of prejudicing any proceedings? Does anyone believe that? If the law yesterday is the same as the law tomorrow, have you seen anyone being charged for sitting in a coffee shop and talking about cases? I think we want a debate that engages honestly on the facts. I will tell you when someone sitting in a coffee shop discussing a case could be contempt. If you catch hold of a witness, have a beer with him and try and influence or threaten him in a coffee shop, that will be contempt.”
“I have explained numerous times in my opening speech and really the question is whether you accept it or you do not accept it. But the Hansard record is there. I said it in 2012 and I said it in 2013. Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said it in 2010. So, if you want to put up a conspiracy theory, I think you got to try harder. We do not normally take six years. The reason we did not push on with this Bill is very simple. As I said, even in the absence of the Bill, the law is there. But it is just that it is better for it to be in writing because it is criminal law. It is the only criminal law that is not set out in statute. So, at some point, we have to set it out. So, all these suggestions of democracy under attack, we are going to restrict freedom of speech, make for fine statements outside if you believe that you can mislead the public. But for a real debate, it does not meet any of the points that I have made. It really raises questions whether the speeches here are meant for a real debate in our First World Parliament or they are made for consumption outside in the belief that the public can be misled. As for what I said about the Bill when it first came out on 11 July, I have said that the Bill clarifies and crystallises the process. The law remains broadly the same. I say that today, too. Ms Sylvia Lim, I think maybe Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, asked me what sort of consultations were conducted. We spoke with the Judiciary in extenso. We took in their comments. We spoke with the Law Society Council. We spoke with groups of lawyers. We spoke with the academia. We spoke with the media. We spoke with some others.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who spoke on the Bill. We have heard a wide variety of views. I will respond to the issues that have been raised as well as some of the more specific queries. First, is the question of timing and motive of the Bill. Some suggestions that we are rushing this, that what is the rush, does it have to do with Benjamin Lim, are we chasing shadows and so on and so forth. Are we chasing shadows? Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said in an interview five years ago that scurrilous remarks, unless firmly dealt with, would inevitably undermine public confidence in the Judiciary. And what has been the timeline for this Bill? This was first raised by former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in 2010 in his Opening of Legal Year speech where he said that he had asked me to consider enacting such a law. In May 2012, I stated that MinLaw intends to put the law of contempt in statutory form and was working on a draft Bill. Former AG Steven Chong said in Opening of the Legal Year 2013 that the Ministry was working with AGC on the Bill. Indeed, there was no rush, and this Bill has taken longer precisely because there was no rush. Why? And I suspect I will be making this point numerous times. The law is already there. The law of contempt is there. There is no urgency. There is only one change in terms of scandalising the Court from "real risk", it has come down to "risk". Otherwise, the other three heads are exactly the same. Please note that. The way it is set out is exactly this. The law tomorrow, if the Bill is passed into an Act, will be exactly the same as the law today in terms of the heads of contempt, except for the test in scandalising the Court. Why are we putting it in writing?”
“This Bill will help maintain the integrity of the system, and I have taken some care to deal with every clause and all the different arguments and explained our rationale. So, I know Members have come with pre-prepared speeches but I would ask that, in the light of the explanations that I have given, Members may want to consider your speeches and deal with the points I have raised as well. That will make the response much more efficient. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The AG must be satisfied that it would be in the public interest to do so before making such an application. The High Court will grant leave if, prima facie, the identity of the publisher and the contemptuous nature of the material are shown. The author of the statement or the publisher can apply to the High Court to set aside or vary the directions. If the publisher takes the view that it is not contemptuous, he can apply to Court to set aside the direction or order. If the Court takes the view that the material is not contemptuous after hearing the publisher, the publisher would be free to publish the material without restriction. Fourthly, there is a defence of innocent publication or distribution under clause 18 of the Bill. A person, who is not the author, but otherwise has control over a publication would not be guilty of committing scandalising contempt or sub judice contempt, if the publication or distribution was done without that person's authority, consent or knowledge; and if that person had acted with due care or caution. Finally, the Bill has written the rules on contempt of Court into statute which I have already explained and all the available defences, to provide certainty to the public. To avoid ambiguity, the Bill provides that the Act, when passed, will prevail over any rules of the common law that would be inconsistent with the Bill. However, there is a need to maintain flexibility for the Courts to develop other areas of laws on contempt, especially given the pace of change, so the Courts have that power. Mdm Speaker, we have a strong justice system, one that is well-respected by Singaporeans and those around the world.”
“Contemptuous conduct can occur outside of Singapore, but its harmful effects on the administration of justice may be felt in Singapore and by Singaporeans, for example, if a plaintiff decides to wage a media campaign against the defendant from outside Singapore, when proceedings are ongoing in Singapore, or where one party prevents a witness from travelling to Singapore to give evidence in a Singapore trial. But, of course, all the limbs as to what amounts to contempt must be satisfied. Where contemptuous articles are published through the Internet, contempt of Court is committed if it is accessed by a member of the public in Singapore. Under clause 19 of the Bill, for publications taking place outside Singapore, the publisher is not guilty of contempt if he or she did not know and had no reason to believe that the publication would be seen or heard by members of the public in Singapore. Contempt of Court is also committed where the disobedience or failure to comply with our Court's order occurred outside Singapore. The key test is whether the contemptuous act directly interferes with, obstructs or poses a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice in Singapore. There is no reason why a person should be permitted to circumvent contempt laws by publishing contemptuous statement or performing contemptuous acts overseas if the intention is to impact in Singapore. Third, there is a need to provide a quick remedy that would allow contemptuous material to be removed before widespread harm is caused. Clause 13 of the Bill permits the Attorney-General (AG) to apply to the High Court for leave to direct a publisher to not publish, or stop publishing, material that is contemptuous.”
“These are maximum punishments. It is for the Courts to determine the appropriate punishment, after taking into account all the facts of the case before them, for example, how serious or aggravated the conduct was. These maximum punishments apply to all types of contempt, including those who fail to comply with Court orders, some of which involve corporate defendants and potentially large sums of monies. For example, they could have moved millions of dollars in contempt of Court. The maximum punishments are not far off from punishments which have previously been meted out by our Courts for contempt. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal sentenced a man to eight months' imprisonment for disobeying a Court order to pay his wife maintenance and for failing to pay her share of matrimonial assets in divorce proceedings. The prescribed maximum punishment must take into account the possibility of even more egregious acts of contempt being brought before our Courts and also repeated contempt – second time, third time, fourth time. As I said earlier, former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had also requested that the statute set out the limits. Second, the Bill provides that contempt of Court can be committed in Singapore, even if some of the acts had occurred outside Singapore. That is similar to criminal law in Singapore in other contexts as well. We live in an increasingly interconnected world.”
“We are upholding standards that have gone down in Britain and have led to a loss of respect and coarsening of society. The Dutch Prime Minister this year described Britain as a country that "has collapsed – politically, economically, monetarily and constitutionally". Britain may well succeed despite reaching a situation where it was described in these terms. It is one of the largest economies in the world. It has the capacity to deal with the issues it faces and succeed. But for us, if we are ever in a situation where a serious person like the Dutch Prime Minister describes us as a collapsed state, we will truly be in trouble. Let me turn from this larger background, to the specific: on the offence of scandalising the Courts. I think I have been clear to Members why I reject the British approach. And as for the British High Commissioner, I think he should spend some time studying the facts. We have a good Judiciary. It can be world-class. Let us make it happen. This Bill alone is not going to make it happen. But it is a part of the total picture. Mdm Speaker, apart from setting out the tests on contempt, there are also a number of provisions of general applicability. First, clause 12 of the Bill sets out the maximum punishment for committing contempt. Currently, the common law imposes no limits on punishing an offender for committing contempt of Court, although certain statutory limits are imposed on the State Courts. Clause 12 sets out what the maximum punishments are. The Court of Appeal and High Court can punish contempt with a fine not exceeding $100,000, or not exceeding three years of imprisonment, or both. For other Courts, the maximum punishments are lower, namely, a fine not exceeding $20,000, or not exceeding 12 months' imprisonment, or both.”
“The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future." In 2011, the British Government commissioned the Leveson Inquiry. That Inquiry said, "The evidence clearly demonstrates that, over the last 30 to 35 years and probably much longer, the political parties of UK national Government and of UK official Opposition, have had or developed too close a relationship with the press in a way which has not been in the public interest". That politicians considered that their control of the supply of news and information to the public, in return for the hope of favourable treatment by sections of the press, was "necessary to counteract the attempts of some sections of the press to discredit their motives and distort the policies that they seek to promote". When he was asked why he was so opposed to the European Union in an interview a few years ago, Murdoch famously said: "That's easy. When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice." There have been numerous commentaries examining the impact of corrosive criticism by the British media on the public perception of institutions. It is a fairly straightforward point: you let the media attack institutions, including the judiciary, over time, trust in the institutions will erode. A judiciary which is not protected, which is underpaid and which feels undervalued, over time, it will take its toll. Britain may be able to face all of this and still be successful. We will not be so lucky. The changes in Britain have not been for the better. And we have decided, consciously, not to go that way.”
“And then the Law Commission reluctantly recommended that the offence of scandalising the courts be abolished because the situation had gotten to a stage where it was no longer possible to reverse what was happening. Did the British High Commission know these facts when the advice was offered? If the High Commission knew the facts, then that does not speak well of them, because we are not in the position Britain found itself in. I have given Members the survey data on how our Courts are viewed by our public. We are in a healthy, good, enviable position. And we are not about to shortchange our Judiciary. We are not struggling or swimming against the tide of public opinion as Britain was. If the British High Commission did not know these facts and yet gave the advice, then, again, it does not speak too well. Before I leave this point, I should deal with one other point. Everyone knows the best British lawyers are extremely good and their senior judges are exceptional, world-class. And their system is known for its independence. Then why is it that their judges feel undervalued, under attack, and public confidence is not exceptionally high? A significant part of the reason is because of the media. It wields an undue amount of power in Britain, with significant influence on politics and finds profit in attacking the judiciary and has been allowed to attack the judiciary. The uncomfortably close relationship between the British media and the political leaders and its impact on public policies are widely acknowledged and criticised. In one of his final speeches as British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair lamented that in the UK, and I quote, the "relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair.”
“So, almost every single one felt not valued and two-thirds thought that they were less respected. Half of all the judges saw media representation of judges, 56%; and public misunderstanding of the judiciary was 59% as factors driving the changes. Decline in judicial morale has been reflected in the increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining judges, especially senior judges, in the UK. A public perception survey on the UK criminal justice system was conducted in 2013/2014. And 64% of the respondents were confident of the fairness of the criminal justice system in the UK, meaning 36% did not say that they were confident. One-third did not say they were confident in the fairness of the system. And only 31% of the respondents were confident that the courts were effective at giving punishments which fit the crime. Do not get me wrong. I have the highest regard for the higher courts of the UK and the quality of their best lawyers. They are truly amongst the best in the world. But it does not follow that how the UK government has treated its judges, how it has paid them, how it has resourced them, how it has protected the judiciary as an institution, offers a good model for us to follow. We have taken a different approach. Our judges are paid properly. The Judiciary is protected from being scandalised. The Judiciary is properly resourced, and we try and retain the prestige of our Judiciary. These are the facts. It is quite astonishing that the British High Commission should give us advice to follow what Britain did. Britain found itself in an untenable position, a difficult situation. Their judiciary did not have the standing or respect that it used to enjoy.”
“The Law Commission also considered that the offence was, in principle, an infringement of freedom of expression, which was a basic right under the European Convention on Human Rights. While the Law Commission did not believe that the existence of the offence was contrary to the European Convention, they felt that there was a risk that particular prosecutions may be disapproved by reason of ECHR. So, they recommended that the offence be abolished because the standing of the courts was already damaged in public opinion, a point, which as I said earlier, they noted with "regret". And keeping the law in the books under such circumstances served no purpose. The damage was irreversible. It was beyond repair. Britain, of course, has had an interesting history, as with its membership in the EU. But I am not sure Britain's experience of changing the law to conform with European human rights laws is completely relevant to us. And the statistics and surrounding facts suggest that what the Law Commission said about the standing of the UK courts is, in fact, true. The Lord Chief Justice of the UK said, in his Report to Parliament earlier this year, "There has, overall, been a widespread feeling [amongst judges] of not being valued or appreciated for their work." A Judicial Attitude Survey among salaried judges in England and Wales courts and UK tribunals was conducted in September 2014. The results showed this. Almost two-thirds of all the judges (62%) said that members of the judiciary are respected by society less than they were 10 years ago. Respect had gone down. Two-thirds thought that. Only 4% thought that they were valued and 96% thought that they were not valued by the media. Only 4% thought that they were valued by the media.”
“If you want to intervene in a debate and make a comment, then at least have the courage of your convictions and not beat a hasty retreat at the first question. There are a few points I would like to make about the comment from the British High Commission. First, which countries did the British High Commission make this comment to? Did the British High Commission see fit to make such comments to the Australians? To the New Zealanders? To the Irish? They also criminalise scandalising the court. Or is it that only some ex-colonies are privileged to get such advice from the British High Commission? If so, I wonder what is the distinction, that we are so privileged? I should make clear that the laws in respect of scandalising and the defences available vary from country to country, even between Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and us. We have consciously chosen to stick to the law as developed by the Singapore Courts, except for the one change I have mentioned. I am not sure the British High Commission is aware of the circumstances in which the offence of scandalising the court had been abolished in the UK in 2013. The UK Law Commission Report of 2012 recommended the abolishment of this offence for the following reasons. The Law Commission noted that "There [was] a great deal of extremely abusive online material concerning judges". That was the situation in the UK. The Law Commission also acknowledged that the UK judiciary had lost the deferential respect it used to enjoy and noted that "this change is one to be regretted". They were of the view that such a situation could no longer be reversed. The offence had limited symbolic value as everyone was scandalising the court anyway. It was happening frequently and was rarely prosecuted.”
“In the words of the New Zealand court, "The complex process of balancing the values underlying free expression and fair trial rights may vary from country to country, even though there is a common and genuine commitment to international human rights norms. The balancing will be influenced by the culture and values of the particular community… The result of the balancing process will necessarily reflect the court's assessment of society's values." Hon Members, let me now turn to what the British High Commission said last week, and I will deal with that. It appears that on 12 August 2016, the British High Commission issued a statement, and I quote: "The UK will continue to urge Singapore and all countries which retain 'scandalising the judiciary' to abolish it." This is surprising. If the British High Commission was really serious and sincere, one would have expected them to touch base and talk to us. So, what is the purpose of issuing a public statement the weekend before the Parliament debate? The purpose seems to be to try and influence the debate, which is quite improper. It gets more curious. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs contacted the British High Commission and asked the High Commissioner what this was all about. He said that the comment was made by his press office in response to a question posed by Reuters and was not specific to Singapore. It was issued on Friday, on the eve of this debate. It says it urges Singapore and all countries to abolish the "scandalising the judiciary" offence, and he said it was not specific to Singapore. With the deepest respect to the High Commissioner, one can only say this answer is extremely intriguing. Very interesting, very intriguing.”
“There are tremendous benefits from the confidence that comes from us being a vibrant, strong, first-rate legal centre with the Judiciary as its central core. Look at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). It is now the top arbitration body in Asia. Why did you think that has happened? If we did not have a reputation for the rule of law, that would not have happened. Again, if you allow baseless attacks on a regular basis, you will not have the same perception. So, I looked at all of this. I looked at the common law. The judges developed the common law based on a strict legal precedent perspective. But we, the Ministry, have a larger policy perspective in terms of the other bits and pieces and aspects of the whole legal spectrum. And, on that basis, we said, on this one area, let us make it even stricter. Look at the impact on the economy ‒ travel, tourism, hospitality. If we succeed in making Singapore a legal hub, it will have a tremendous positive impact on the economy. And we have a real chance to do that, provided we get it right. And weigh that, again – I keep coming back to this point – what is it that is being curbed? Most of us would not want to get out of bed and say something about a judge being a "swine". It is that which is being curbed ‒ allegations that a judge is biased. You weigh the public good against what is being proscribed and, in my view, the balance is quite clear. There are countries where a view has been taken, that more latitude should be given to attack judges. It is a question for each society, each country to decide, as these other countries have themselves acknowledged.”
“Judges who cannot respond and defend themselves. It is a policy call as to why we should give them protection. Members may say, yes, but why not the current layer of protection as in the common law, which is "real risk"? I have explained why. I want to make sure that the integrity of the Judiciary is pristine. This will give us a strong anchoring in the rule of law which, in itself, is of basic fundamental importance for our people. Second, quite importantly – the first is the fundamental reason, that alone is enough, but going beyond it – it allows Singapore to be the pre-eminent, vibrant legal centre in the region. That is of tremendous value to Singapore. Look at the number of large law firms in Singapore ‒ substantial, given the size of our economy. Larger economies do not have as many large law firms. Look at the quality of the profession in Singapore and the international work it gets. Look at the number of foreign lawyers who are here. Look at the work that gets done out of Singapore, benefiting us and our economy, which has got no connection to Singapore. We stand out in Asia as the jurisdiction of unchallenged independence, impartiality, great judiciary, good lawyers. That is what I am seeking to protect. Look at the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). We invited some of the eminent judges from around the world to sit on it and they agreed. Why did they agree? Because they have a reputation, and we will protect them, too. They accept and hear international cases which have little or no connection to Singapore. I do not think any other country in Asia could have set up an SICC. They could have set it up, but it would not succeed. It will succeed in Singapore.”
“Academics have for many years written articles to criticise judgments. As I have earlier explained, fair and accurate reporting that is made in good faith will also not be caught. Let me emphasise again: this Bill is not about protecting judges. And I should say, by the way, this is also not about protecting the Government. It has nothing to do with the Government. It is about the administration of justice. Judges should be held to high standards of accountability, like other public servants. Clause 16 allows a report to be made to the Chief Justice or relevant authorities on the judges' conduct. That can include the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). If there is judicial misconduct, report them. This is Singapore; it will be investigated. Similarly, clause 17 allows any aggrieved party to file a case or application in Court to seek the disqualification of a judge. Weighing the importance of maintaining the sanctity and reputation of the Judiciary, we have decided that it should be contempt if one imputes improper motives, impugns the integrity, propriety or impartiality of a Court; and that poses a risk of undermining public confidence in the Judiciary. If one calls a judge a biased swine, then let us not have arguments as to whether he only risked undermining the sanctity of the Judiciary, as opposed to whether he really risked undermining the sanctity of the Judiciary. Our Judiciary is of fundamental importance. I have laid out for Members the different factors, and this is a policy call if we want to go this way. It is for us to decide which is the right approach. It is not about the Government. It is not about Members of Parliament. It is about the Judiciary. Judges, not in their personal capacity, but judges performing functions.”
“The point is this: on one side, the Courts administer justice. Respect for them, respect for their authority, are a key pillar of society, a fundamental public good for the well-functioning of society. On the other hand, weighing against that, what is being curbed? The right of an individual to abuse the Judiciary, to say judges are biased and corrupt, to scandalise the Courts. People have the right, as I said more than once, to criticise judgments, to criticise policies, to disagree with rulings and to discuss all of them. And remember that those who attack the judges fall within a wide spectrum – from the idealistic, to those who are constitutionally sour, to those who are outright dishonest. Some will criticise out of true idealism. Some will keep repeating falsehoods or manufacturing facts. Some will exploit the position by making personal attacks, sensationalising based on falsehoods for pecuniary profit. It has happened. So, you weigh it. On one side, you have the sanctity of the Judiciary and the confidence reposed in the Judiciary. On the other side, we have some people's desire to launch personal attacks against judges. Which is more important? That is the weighing that one has to do. In a case in Hong Kong, a newspaper accused the local judiciary of being biased against them. Among other things, it described the judges as "swinish white-skinned judges", "pigs" and "judicial scumbags and evil remnants of the British Hong Kong government". Ask yourself, what is the benefit of publishing this sort of thing, apart from some perverse form of personal satisfaction from the writer's perspective? It is that which is prohibited in Singapore. The Bill makes clear that fair criticism is not prohibited and "fair criticism" is defined in case law.”
“As was stated by an Australian Court in 1994:"…it is important to remember that … the justification for proceedings for contempt of court… lies not in the protection of the reputation of the individual judge… but in the need to ensure that… courts are able effectively to discharge the functions, duties and powers entrusted to them by the people". As another court, this time in Ireland in 1991, put it: "[The contempt] is not committed by mere criticism of judges as judges, or by the expression of disagreement – even emphatic disagreement – with what has been decided by the courts. The right of citizens to express freely, subject to public order, convictions and opinions is wide enough to comprehend such criticism or expressed disagreement. Such contempt occurs where wild and baseless allegations of corruption or malpractice are made against a court so as to hold the judges to the odium of the people as actors playing a sinister part in a caricature of justice." Again, I refer to these cases: mainly for the expression of the principle on why we have this rule – scandalising the Court. Singaporean cases are the ones that matter and the underlying philosophy of the Singaporean cases is similar. When you have a situation where the Courts are respected, then the administration of justice proceeds smoothly. Justice can be delivered fairly and firmly. And people, whether or not they are satisfied with a judgment, nevertheless, trust the system. Internationally, what is the standing of our Courts? There are many published papers on this. The World Bank ranked us in the 95th percentile for the rule of law. According to the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), we are second in Asia for the quality of our judicial and legal system.”
“What you say must pose a risk of erosion of public confidence. Under common law in Singapore, the test is "real risk". In the Bill, the test is "risk." The different heads of contempt, clauses 3 and 4, what amounts to contempt, the Bill sets out the law as it stands now. This is the one change to the current law in the clauses on the substantive elements of contempt. I will discuss the reasons for our approach in the Bill. The Judiciary and the administration of justice are hugely precious assets for us. We inherited them from the UK and have made them better. And we must continue to protect it. The common law as it is applied in Singapore does not allow our Courts to be debased or scandalised. Singaporeans, as well as international institutions, hold our Courts in very high regard. Let me give Members some statistics. My Ministry conducted a survey recently on how Singaporeans view our Courts. And 92% said they had trust and confidence in our legal system; 96% agreed that Singapore was governed by rule of law. Separately, the State Courts conducted a survey on Court users last year. More than 90% had confidence in the fair administration of justice by the State Courts; agreed that the State Courts independently carried out justice according to the law; and agreed that the State Courts administered justice with integrity. That is an enviable position to be in. The Judiciary is truly an institution that is held in the highest esteem by Singaporeans. That is the very foundation of the rule of law. The greater the prestige of the Courts, the greater the authority, and the greater the respect from everyone for that authority.”
“Based on the empirical analysis, commentators concluded that "the emergence of the press politics of outrage is undermining trust not just in the political class as individuals, now a well-rehearsed debate, but in entire institutions". That means it is undermining confidence and trust in the entire institutions, beyond the politicians. Politicians are already assumed to be "gone cases", if I can use a colloquial term. Likewise, in Singapore, if you allow baseless attacks on the Judiciary, you get erosion of trust in the Judiciary. This does not mean no criticism of the Judiciary is allowed. I read out the extracts from the different judges, including former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. So, that is not understood much by people, they think that it precludes any kind of criticism. It does not mean protecting judges from being criticised in their personal conduct, for example, outside of their conduct as judges. If they behave badly, they can be criticised. It does not mean you cannot criticise their judgments. It does not mean that you cannot criticise the way they conducted trials, as long as no improper motives are ascribed. When people lose confidence in the Judiciary, your entire administration of justice gets affected. That is on one side. Weigh that against what is it that you are seeking to proscribe? You are proscribing specific attacks of bias, corruption, favouritism, scurrilous abuse and other allegations of such nature. Nothing prevents you from attacking the reasoning of the judge, attacking policies reflected in the judgments. And you are entitled to the full latitude of fair criticism. What is prohibited, therefore, is quite narrow. And there is a further condition, before the offence is made out.”
“Clause 3(1)(a) provides that it is contempt of Court to impute improper motives, or impugns the integrity, propriety or impartiality of any Court, and, so, this is conjunctive – if what you do or publish poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice will be undermined. So, you have got to show that the statements impugned the integrity, propriety or impartiality, or imputed improper motives, and you also have to show that there was a risk that public confidence and the administration of justice would be impacted. Two questions: why do we need this? And what exactly is being curtailed? If you allow constant attacks – attacks, say, of bias and corruption – over time, the public perception of the judiciary will be affected. This, I think, is self-evident. I will explain later with reference to one country. I asked for some research in related fields. There is a recent psychological study led by a Vanderbilt University researcher. It showed that false statements which were repeated even when the participants knew better caused participants to later believe the statements were true. This is called the "illusory truth" effect. Assume there are blatant and unsubstantiated falsehoods about the judiciary repeated often enough, it will affect public confidence in the judiciary. Let me give another example. An empirical analysis was conducted of British press coverage of the 2009 Ian Tomlinson scandal. This involved a newspaper vendor who died in the midst of police handling protesters at London's G20 summit. He died after being pushed by a police officer.”
“In 2011, he said this: "The rationale of punishing such kind of contempt is to uphold the authority of the Court which is an indispensable institution for the administration of justice... We do not mind criticism, even harsh criticism, of the merits or justice of our decisions, on grounds that are not related to our fitness to hold judicial office... Those who do not hold judicial office may not fully appreciate or share the same sense of responsibility that a judge holds with regard to his office. Scurrilous remarks, unless firmly dealt with, would inevitably undermine public confidence in the Judiciary." The High Court of Australia has observed that: "The authority of the law rests on public confidence, and it is important for the stability of society that the confidence of the public should not be shaken by baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of courts or judges." The New Zealand courts have said: "Extravagant and inflammatory language, calculated not only to incite disapproval of particular decisions, but also to shake confidence in the courts themselves, and provoke discontent and ill-feeling, is considered so plainly contrary to the public interest as to constitute an offence calling, in proper cases, for the application of the summary power for punishing for contempt... Criticism may be strong and forceful, but it is not to be couched in the language of abuse and invective ". I have quoted from other jurisdictions to explain the rationale for the rule. The precise application of the law, of course, varies from country to country.”
“And so far, for all the statements that the Government has issued, there has been no suggestion that these actions have prejudiced any proceedings. The Bill seeks to set out what is happening and what has happened for many years. In one or two cases, it was alleged that the statement should not have been made and the Courts have clarified the position. For example, in Re Application of Lau Swee Song [1967] SGHC 16, the Court considered the Government's responsibility to come out and deal with matters publicly. The Government will only be allowed to give a factual account and state its position, and that statement will not preclude the Court from exercising its judicial power in relation to the issues at hand. Clause 14 of the Bill permits a fair and accurate report of ongoing proceedings that is in good faith; published contemporaneously or within a reasonable time after the proceedings, unless such publication would otherwise be contrary to the law, order of court or relates to confidential matters. It also provides that there is no liability if the publisher did not know or have reason to believe that the proceedings were pending. Let me now turn to contempt by scandalising the Court. That is set out in clause 3(1)(a). The Courts are integral to a well-functioning democracy. People must have faith and confidence in them. People must have faith and confidence in the administration of justice. That is critical for any society. Baseless attacks on the Judiciary erode trust and affect confidence in the administration of justice. This principle is well-recognised. Let me quote former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.”
“This happens today on a regular basis even before the law. Take the example where there is a spread of infectious diseases, maybe something like the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and say it could potentially be due to negligence, maybe even fraud, on the part of some hospital staff. And let us say the Police are investigating and proceedings are likely and, say, a Coroner's inquiry has been announced. Nevertheless, the Government must be able to come out and to set out the facts, as it knows them. The public needs to know what is happening, what is the likely infection spread, crucially, what are the risks to individuals and what happened at the hospital, as best known at that point in time by the Government. Take another example. Say, a bank suffers a run due to a massive fraud by an employee. The bank may have commenced action immediately and may have obtained injunctions. Meanwhile, bank runs can be contagious, dangerous. They can have serious consequences for the economy. The Government must come out and state the facts and the position and, hopefully, reassure the public. It cannot wait for ongoing Court proceedings to end before informing the public about some matters. As I said, if we look back, it is not unusual for the Government to come out and make these statements. It is not targeted at any particular individual. It is not targeted at the case per se. It is about what happened so that the public can go about their affairs in a more informed way where there is a specific public interest to do so. The Government statements are usually crafted sensitively to try and avoid prejudicing proceedings, while informing the public, because their own lives, well-being also need to be protected.”
“Current law and the law as set out in the Bill are the same, and one is not prevented from advocating one's position, for example, on the death penalty even if a capital trial is going on. Academics or media outlets publish commentaries on a judge's decision, even where an appeal is pending. These are not prohibited. Commenting on a judge's reasoning is unlikely to pose a real risk of prejudicing the appeal outcome. We have not changed the law. Such commentaries are allowed today. If the Bill gets passed, they will continue to be allowed under the Act. In coming up with this approach, we have, of course, considered the approach in other jurisdictions. The United Kingdom (UK) has set a higher bar before you can find a person guilty of sub judice contempt. It did so, at least partly, to bring its law in line with European law. The UK Act came about after the European Court of Human Rights decided, in one case, that the decision of the UK courts did not satisfy the test under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Australian and New Zealand courts have taken a different position from that of the UK. Each country will decide for itself what is best in its own interests. Our Courts have set out what the test is for us. We have to chart our course and decide what is in our best interests. Our Courts have expressly rejected the approach taken in the UK, inter alia, for the reason that the UK position has been impacted by it being subject to ECHR. I now turn to clause 3(4) of the Bill, which says "A person who issues a statement on behalf of the Government will not be liable for sub judice, notwithstanding pending Court proceedings, if it is in the public interest to do so". What does this clause cover?”
“Those with more resources or better access to the media can also abuse such a system. They will take advantage if we are not strict. For example, by starting media campaigns to pressure an accused to plead guilty, or a victim to settle out of Court, justice can become a function of how closely connected one is to media sources or how wealthy one is. And what happens after the media prints an article that unfairly assumes you are guilty, when you are, in fact, innocent? The public would not be able to tell which facts are true, which facts are false or irrelevant. How then will you clear your name in public? Will the public believe what you say after a series of articles of such a nature? It can affect you, your safety, your family's safety, your career, your standing in society. All these before the Court has decided on your guilt or innocence. And if the defendant complains, it will be argued that the matters were discussed in the public interest and the prejudice was only incidental. In effect, the question, therefore, when considering these other suggestions, is whether you want to undermine the presumption of innocence and whether it is fair to do so. If you want to reverse burdens, that has to be done statutorily for specific public policy reasons. It is for these reasons that we have a process for determining guilt or innocence before the Courts where evidence is tested and scrutinised, where unreliable evidence is excluded, and where the Court makes findings based on a detailed analysis of the law and facts. The public and media are also free to debate the merits or demerits of our legislation, even if there are ongoing cases involving such legislation.”
“Barely a month after the incident, one newspaper published that the victim "it seems, died for no other reason than that she had the terrible misfortune to find herself sharing an apartment with ‘Foxy Knoxy'". That is the moniker they gave her – "Foxy Knoxy". This conclusion was based on comments that were passed by some unidentified persons. Some newspapers labelled her as a "killer" or "psycho-killer" before the courts had fully determined the matter. Reading these articles, the natural inclination would be for a member of the public to agree with the tone of the articles, to conclude that the suspect was guilty even before the investigations had been completed. Ask yourselves, was this fair? Is this fair? Often, they are based on assertions and evidence that would not stand the scrutiny of a court process. And, in fact, Ms Knox was eventually acquitted. How does all this hype affect proceedings? Italy's highest court, the Supreme Court of Cassation, observed that: "Certainly, the unusual hype of the story, caused not only by the dramatic mode of death of a 22-year-old…but also by the nationality of the people involved…and therefore by the international repercussions of the story, caused the investigations to suffer a sudden acceleration, which, in the frantic search for one or more culprits to be delivered to international public opinion, certainly did not facilitate seeking the substantial truth." This is not the type of justice system we want. We do not want to get into arguments with commentators as to whether what they said may have prejudiced the trial, but it was necessary in public interest; nor do we want to get into an argument where they say, "Well, you know, prejudicing the trial was incidental to my right to speak".”