Kangaroo T-shirts trio showed wilful, stubborn contempt for the courts
By Kor Kian Beng 25 February 2009
Three men who wore T-shirts depicting a kangaroo dressed in judge’s robes last year presented the worst form of insult possible against the court system here by calling it a ‘kangaroo court’.
Justice Judith Prakash, who sentenced them to jail terms last November after finding them to be in contempt of court, said in her written judgment that their conduct showed a wilful and stubborn contempt for the integrity of the courts.
It was also designed to degrade the administration of justice here, she said in her judgment released yesterday.
‘The imputation that the Singapore courts are ‘kangaroo courts’ was a serious and scurrilous insult that struck at the foundation, the body and the spirit of the justice system in Singapore,’ she said in explaining her decision and sentencing.
‘The message was that justice cannot be obtained in our courts and that our legal proceedings are a sham.’
Describing their actions as the worst form of insult possible against the court system, she said it merited a harsher punishment than that imposed previously.
‘It was imperative that a clear message be sent to potential contemners that such attacks on the judiciary are not acceptable,’ she said.
The trio in question were John Tan Liang Joo, 47, assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP); activist Isrizal Mohamed Isa, 33; and full-time national serviceman Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Sariman, 20.
They wore the T-shirts when they attended a High Court hearing involving the SDP and its leaders last year.
In her 10-page judgment, Justice Prakash said a reasonable person who saw the T-shirts would conclude they were a reference to the expression ‘kangaroo court’ - and were intended to cast aspersions on the conduct of the hearings they attended, and the justice system here.
A kangaroo court is a court marked by unauthorised or irregular procedures, or sham and unfair legal proceedings.
Justice Prakash said she did not agree with the argument that their actions were fair criticism. She said that Tan had chosen to make a statement by wearing the T-shirt, ‘and even worse, inciting others to wear it within the court’s premises’.
‘This amounted to a deliberate and provocative attack on the court, falling far outside the realm of fair and reasoned criticism,’ she said.
Isrizal’s contention that he had no intention to scandalise the judiciary ‘was doubtful in the light of his subsequent refusal to apologise for his acts, on the basis that it would go against his conscience’, she added.
She also dismissed attempts by Tan and Isrizal to blame others: The Straits Times for publishing a photograph of the trio in the T-shirts outside the court, and police officers for not telling them that the T-shirts were objectionable.
The question whether The Straits Times should be held liable for circulating the photograph was irrelevant to the question of the trio’s liability as the element of publication is only necessary for establishing defamation, she said.
Also, the police officers were under no duty to warn them that they were potentially committing a contempt of court.
She said the trio posed at a spot where it was obvious they would be seen and photographed by the press.
Justice Prakash noted that Tan was also involved in posting an article with a photograph of them in the T-shirts on the SDP’s website.
‘It was clear to me that this case was about much more than merely wearing a T-shirt. The conduct of the (trio) communicated to an average member of the public (their) conviction that the Singapore courts are ‘kangaroo courts’,’ she said.
Justice Prakash listed what she saw as aggravating factors that merited jail terms, including being ‘deliberately unforthcoming’ at the hearings.
Isrizal and Shafi’ie did not give a clear account of how and why they wore the T-shirts, and Tan and Shafi’ie did not explain what they had come to court to ‘commemorate’ by wearing the T-shirts.
‘This lack of cooperation weighed against them in the determination of their sentences,’ she said.
The trio’s refusal to apologise when given an opportunity to do so demonstrated their lack of contrition, she added.
Justice Prakash singled out Tan, saying he was ‘particularly recalcitrant’.
His comments that punishing him would be futile showed a lack of repentance that aggravated the offence. That he also distributed the T-shirts and was involved in the website posting made him more culpable than Isrizal and Shafi’ie.
1 comment:
Worst insult possible, says judge
Kangaroo T-shirts trio showed wilful, stubborn contempt for the courts
By Kor Kian Beng
25 February 2009
Three men who wore T-shirts depicting a kangaroo dressed in judge’s robes last year presented the worst form of insult possible against the court system here by calling it a ‘kangaroo court’.
Justice Judith Prakash, who sentenced them to jail terms last November after finding them to be in contempt of court, said in her written judgment that their conduct showed a wilful and stubborn contempt for the integrity of the courts.
It was also designed to degrade the administration of justice here, she said in her judgment released yesterday.
‘The imputation that the Singapore courts are ‘kangaroo courts’ was a serious and scurrilous insult that struck at the foundation, the body and the spirit of the justice system in Singapore,’ she said in explaining her decision and sentencing.
‘The message was that justice cannot be obtained in our courts and that our legal proceedings are a sham.’
Describing their actions as the worst form of insult possible against the court system, she said it merited a harsher punishment than that imposed previously.
‘It was imperative that a clear message be sent to potential contemners that such attacks on the judiciary are not acceptable,’ she said.
The trio in question were John Tan Liang Joo, 47, assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP); activist Isrizal Mohamed Isa, 33; and full-time national serviceman Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Sariman, 20.
They wore the T-shirts when they attended a High Court hearing involving the SDP and its leaders last year.
In her 10-page judgment, Justice Prakash said a reasonable person who saw the T-shirts would conclude they were a reference to the expression ‘kangaroo court’ - and were intended to cast aspersions on the conduct of the hearings they attended, and the justice system here.
A kangaroo court is a court marked by unauthorised or irregular procedures, or sham and unfair legal proceedings.
Justice Prakash said she did not agree with the argument that their actions were fair criticism. She said that Tan had chosen to make a statement by wearing the T-shirt, ‘and even worse, inciting others to wear it within the court’s premises’.
‘This amounted to a deliberate and provocative attack on the court, falling far outside the realm of fair and reasoned criticism,’ she said.
Isrizal’s contention that he had no intention to scandalise the judiciary ‘was doubtful in the light of his subsequent refusal to apologise for his acts, on the basis that it would go against his conscience’, she added.
She also dismissed attempts by Tan and Isrizal to blame others: The Straits Times for publishing a photograph of the trio in the T-shirts outside the court, and police officers for not telling them that the T-shirts were objectionable.
The question whether The Straits Times should be held liable for circulating the photograph was irrelevant to the question of the trio’s liability as the element of publication is only necessary for establishing defamation, she said.
Also, the police officers were under no duty to warn them that they were potentially committing a contempt of court.
She said the trio posed at a spot where it was obvious they would be seen and photographed by the press.
Justice Prakash noted that Tan was also involved in posting an article with a photograph of them in the T-shirts on the SDP’s website.
‘It was clear to me that this case was about much more than merely wearing a T-shirt. The conduct of the (trio) communicated to an average member of the public (their) conviction that the Singapore courts are ‘kangaroo courts’,’ she said.
Justice Prakash listed what she saw as aggravating factors that merited jail terms, including being ‘deliberately unforthcoming’ at the hearings.
Isrizal and Shafi’ie did not give a clear account of how and why they wore the T-shirts, and Tan and Shafi’ie did not explain what they had come to court to ‘commemorate’ by wearing the T-shirts.
‘This lack of cooperation weighed against them in the determination of their sentences,’ she said.
The trio’s refusal to apologise when given an opportunity to do so demonstrated their lack of contrition, she added.
Justice Prakash singled out Tan, saying he was ‘particularly recalcitrant’.
His comments that punishing him would be futile showed a lack of repentance that aggravated the offence. That he also distributed the T-shirts and was involved in the website posting made him more culpable than Isrizal and Shafi’ie.
Post a Comment