# data[].attributes.body
4(a)

Ans: The stated rationale behind the existence of such an office is that the “Contempt of court” is the conduct that tends to undermine the authority of legal proceedings, or causesthe public to lose confidence in the courts in resolving disputes.

(b)

The test that was applied is the “real risk” test - whether, given the facts and circumstances, there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice is or would be undermined as result of the conduct or statement.

(c)

No. As the Court of Appeal stated that fair criticism is not a defence to a

charge of contempt, it simply describes using the concept of fair criticism in determining whether or not a statement or conduct is a contempt of court in the first instance.

5a.

Yes. As his publication of the cartoon undermines the authority of legal proceedings and might cause the public to lose confidence in the courts in resolving dispute.

5b.

No. He cannot be tried as he did not criticise the law rather than the court itself.

# data[].attributes.body
4a. This is to protect the court so that the public does not lose their confidence in court to resolve issues.

4b. The 'Real Risk' test was used in place of the 'Inherent Tendency Test'. This

# data[].attributes.body
Question 4

4a. The rationale behind it is to protect the image of the court so that people would not lose confidence in the court.

4b. The ‘real risk’ test was used instead of the ‘inherent tendency test’. This test is to see if there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice is/would be undermined as a result of the conduct of statement.

4c. If the defense can prove that the conduct/statements made in good faith, it would not be considered as contempt. However, the Court of Appeal has stated that ‘fair criticism’ can’t be used as a defense.

Question 5

5a. Yes, he is liable to be charged with contempt. The cartoon portrayed the court in a negative light and the general public may think that the court is biased and may lose confidence in them.

5b. No, he cannot be tried for contempt in court. He criticized the law and not the court. This could be under ‘fair criticism’ because he did only brought up criticisms about the law.

# data[].attributes.body
Q5 (a) Yes, Les Koo is liable to be charged with contempt. As the cartoon has depicted the court showing favoritism, this can cause others to view the court as unjust and hence, put them in a negative light and cause others to question them. This can incite hatred and dissatisfaction among the people and hence, would make him liable to be charged with contempt.

(b) No, he is not liable to be charged for contempt. Johnson's statements criticise the law as a whole and not the people making and enforcing the laws. His statements were made simply to prevent these laws from being misused in the future. With all these in mind, this could be a case of fair criticism

# data[].attributes.body
Q4 (a)  The rationale behind such an office is to protect against contempt of the court, this means its main aim is to prevent people from losing confidence in the  court to solve disputes.

(b) Although the usual test conducted was the "Inherent Tendency Test", the case for Shadrake was tested using the "Real Risk Test". In which they tested whether or not an actual risk was posed to the administration of justice regarding the public's confidence towards it.

(c) If the statement was made in fairness, then there is no contempt involved. However in the case of Shadrake, it was ruled that fair criticism was not a form of defence to being charged with contempt.

# data[].attributes.body
5

a) Yes, he is liable.

This is because the cartoon depicted the court negatively as it showed that the judges were biased towards foreigners. This will, in turn, incite hatred and contempt or excite disaffection against the authority of court proceedings.

b) No, he is not liable.

Essentially, his statements were not made to target the judges but rather, the laws in Singapore. He is just highlighting the fact that the current laws, which he considers as "colonial era laws" in Singapore may be misused. Furthermore, he had also cited examples as evidence to back up his statements. In this case, it could be fair criticism.

# data[].attributes.body
4

a) The rationale behind it is to protect the reputation of the court as it will cause the public to lose confidence in the courts.

b) Usuall, the "inherent tendency test" will be conducted.

This test will essentially examine whether an act or words suggesting or alleging bias, lack of impratiality or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function, has the inherit tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.

However, the Court of Appeal had adopted the "Real Risk" test.

This test will examine whether given the facts and circumstances, there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice is or would be undermined as result of the conduct or statement.

c) If the conduct or statements can be described as being made in good faith or fairness, then there is no contempt. However, in this case, fair criticism is not a defence to a charge of contempt, it simply describes using the concept of fair criticism in determining whether or not a statement or conduct is a contempt of court in the first instance.

# data[].attributes.body
5a) Yes, he is liable to be charged with the contempt of courts as his cartoons criticise the judges' impartiality in their administration of justice in regards to favouring foreigners. The cartoons paints the judiciary in a bad light and when the public reads this, they may lose faith in the judges' ability to be non-bias in future cases.

5b) No, he may not necessarily be as he could use the defense that his article was criticizing the laws of Singapore themselves, rather than the administration of justice. In other words, his article covers the statutes and not the court judges' abilities to interpret and administer the laws. Hence, such a case can be argued to not fall under the offence of the "contempt of courts'

# data[].attributes.body
Q5
(a) Yes he is liable because his actions could depict the court in a negative light. Contempt of court refers to conduct that tends to undermine the authority of court proceedings or cause the public to lose confidence in the courts. This is not fair criticism as it is based on his opinions reflected through his drawings.

(b) No, if the conduct or statements can be described as being made in good faith and fairness, there is no contempt. In this case, Jim cannot be tried for contempt of court as he has the example of concept laws being used to muzzle criticism of the government.

# data[].attributes.body
Q4
(a) The stated rationale behind the existence of such an offence is to prevent the public from losing confidence in the court with regards to its ability in resolving legal disputes.

(b) The usual test for liability of this offence was the “inherent tendency” test. It is to see if an act or words suggesting or alleging bias, lack of impartiality or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function, has the inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.

(c) Yes, if the conduct or statements can be described as being made in good faith and fairness, there is no contempt. In Alan Shadrake, the Court of Appeal also clarified that fair criticism is not a defence to a charge of contempt, it simply describes using the concept of fair criticism in determining whether or not a statement or conduct is a contempt of court in the first instance.

# data[].attributes.body
Q5a) Yes, he is liable to be subjected to 'Contempt of Court' due to the cartoon's representation of the court being biased towards foreigners.
b) No, he is not liable to be charged with 'Contempt of Court'. His article, whilst criticising the laws of Singapore, does not criticise the administration of justice in Singapore. The article focuses on the law, not the court therefore he is cannot be charged for contempt of court.

# data[].attributes.body
Q4a) The rationale is that Alan has breached the Sedition Act under the contempt of court by questioning the court’s decision-making process that may lead to causing the public to lose confidence in the court.
b) The test used was the "real risk" test in place of the "inherent tendency test to find out the risk that deals with the public's confidence in the administration of justice would be a result of the conduct or statement based on the given facts and circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
Q5
(a) Yes, as such comics possess the ability to bring hatred and contempt, or excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore by alleging that the courts are biased towards foreigners

(b) No, as technically he is not challenging the authority of a judge nor is he insinuating that the courts are biased. He is raising an issue with the current laws that are in place due to the possibility of them being misused. However, according to the "real risk" test, he might be tried for contempt if his words are found to be a risk to the administration of justice and might undermine the authority of the court

# data[].attributes.body
Q4
(a)  To defend the court against conduct that undermines the authority of legal proceedings, or causes the public to lose confidence in the courts' ability to resolve legal disputes

(b)  The “real
risk” test was conducted instead of the usual "inherent tendency test", to find out whether, given the facts and circumstances, there is a real risk that public confidence in
the administration of justice is or would be undermined as result of the conduct or statement.

(c)  If the conduct or statements can be described as being made in good faith and fairness, there is no
contempt. In Alan Shadrake, the Court of Appeal also clarified that fair criticism is not a defence to a
charge of contempt, it simply describes using the concept of fair criticism in determining whether or
not a statement or conduct is a contempt of court in the first instance.

# data[].attributes.body
Q5
a.    Yes, he is liable to be charged with contempt of court. The cartoon was illustrated to mock the judges and show that they were biased toward foreigners. The public may lose their faith in the judges’ decisions because of the message put across in the cartoon.

b.    No, he cannot be tried for contempt in court. His statements had nothing to do with the judges, he only was challenging the old laws still used in Singapore today. There is no risk that the public would lose faith in the court because of his statements.

# data[].attributes.body
4a) The rationale behind it is to prevent people from losing faith in the impartiality of the courts and its judges.

4b) Before this case, the test of liability would be  the "inherent tendency" test which tests whether an act or words suggesting or alleging bias, lack of impartiality or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function, has the inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. However, the Court of Appeal stated that the test to be applied here is the "real risk" test which covers whether given the facts and circumstances, there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice is or would be undermined as result of the conduct or statement.

4c) One possible defence is that if the conduct or statements made by the accused were proven to be made in good faith or contain any evidence to back it up, it could be considered as fair criticism and not contempt. However, this will not likely work as the article has already stated that "fair criticism" cannot be used as a defence, but rather a test to show whether the statements were in contempt of the courts in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
Q4
(a) To preserve the reputation/reliability of the judiciary

(b)  “inherent tendency” test – whether an act or words suggesting or alleging bias, lack of impartiality or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function, has the inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. the Court of Appeal clarified that the test to be applied instead is the “real risk” test - whether, given the facts and circumstances, there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice is or would be undermined as result of the conduct or statement.

(c)    If the conduct or statements can be described as being made in good faith and fairness, there is no contempt. In Alan Shadrake, the Court of Appeal also clarified that fair criticism is not a defence to a charge of contempt, it simply describes using the concept of fair criticism in determining whether or not a statement or conduct is a contempt of court in the first instance.

# data[].attributes.body
Q 5