Re: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Facts

This was the sentencing decision in two committal applications by the Attorney-General, HC/SUM 670/2022 and HC/SUM 669/2022, against the lawyer Ravi s/o Madasamy. In an earlier judgment, Attorney-General v Ravi s/o Madasamy and another matter [2023] SGHC 78, the court had found him liable for nine instances of contempt under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.

In SUM 670, the contempts were committed before District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt on 9 November 2021 and 10 November 2021: accusing the judge of bias without basis, interrupting him, and insulting him by saying he could be removed at will by the State and lacked security of tenure. In SUM 669, they were committed before Justice Audrey Lim on 22 November 2021 and the day after: repeated baseless accusations of bias and other allegations impugning the court, repeated interruptions, applying for her disqualification without his client's instructions, and causing his paralegal to email the Registry without instructions.

It was undisputed that Mr Ravi was in a hypomanic episode of bipolar disorder at the time, which contributed to his conduct. The Attorney-General sought custodial terms for every instance, with an aggregate of five weeks' imprisonment. Mr Ravi argued that the disorder substantially reduced his culpability and that fines should be imposed.

Issues

1. What mitigating weight should be given to Mr Ravi's bipolar disorder.
2. Whether his standing as a senior lawyer, his disciplinary history and his lack of remorse were aggravating, and whether the custodial threshold was crossed.
3. What sentence should be imposed for each instance and in aggregate.

Holding

The High Court sentenced Mr Ravi to imprisonment for each instance: seven days for the scandalising and insult contempts before District Judge Chay, five days for interrupting him, 14 days each for the two scandalising contempts before Justice Lim, and seven days each for the interruption and the two acts taken without instructions. It ordered the sentences for the Second and Sixth Instances to run consecutively and the rest concurrently, committing him to 21 days of imprisonment, with costs to be dealt with later.

Reasoning

The medical reports showed a contributory link between the disorder and the conduct, but neither said his self-control was substantially impaired. Being unfit to practise did not establish that. He knew he needed treatment, admitted forgetting medication on some days, returned the next day to insult the District Judge again, and kept practising. Only moderate mitigating weight was given, and deterrence remained relevant.

His standing as a senior lawyer was aggravating, because lawyers must assist in the administration of justice and their allegations in open court carry more weight. Three disciplinary convictions for similar courtroom misconduct were relevant antecedents, and earlier financial penalties had not deterred him. He showed no genuine remorse: he never apologised to either judge, ran a fair criticism defence, and called the proceedings overkill. That his clients distanced themselves from his allegations was at best neutral.

Given these factors, the custodial threshold was crossed for every instance. Allegations of bias made directly in open court were at least as serious as the contempt in Ong Wui Teck v Attorney-General [2020] 1 SLR 855 and more serious than in Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General [2016] 1 SLR 992. The contempts before Justice Lim were relentless and prolonged, and the acts without instructions caused significant interference, including the vacation of trial dates. A comparison with another lawyer who had apologised at once and pleaded guilty did not help him. Applying the totality principle, consecutive terms for unrelated contempts before different judges gave a proportionate total.

From the judgment