(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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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. 

 

(b)  

 

(c)   

5a.   

 

5b.