Re: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Hoo Sheau Peng |
| Charges / claim | Contempt of Court |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Chin Jincheng, Chong Yong, Loo Yu Hao Adrian, Rimplejit Kaur, Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas |
Source: [2023] SGHC 78, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Attorney-General v Ravi s/o Madasamy and another matter [2023] SGHC 78 was heard in the General Division of the High Court by Hoo Sheau Peng J on 10 October 2022, with judgment reserved and delivered on 31 March 2023. The matter comprised two applications by the Attorney-General, in Originating Summonses Nos 21 and 22 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 670 and 669 of 2022), for orders of committal for contempt of court against Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, under sections 3 and 10 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016. The applications concerned Mr Ravi's conduct in two sets of proceedings in November 2021.
[2023] SGHC 78 explained
Re: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2023] SGHC 78) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 31 March 2023. It is categorised under Contempt of Court. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHC 78 about?
Re: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2023] SGHC 78) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Contempt of Court — Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 78 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2023] SGHC 78?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 78 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The Attorney-General brought two committal applications against Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy, an advocate and solicitor, alleging contempt of court under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 arising from his conduct in State Court and High Court proceedings in November 2021. A common defence was that Mr Ravi was suffering a relapse of bipolar disorder, and liability was determined first. The court found him liable on several allegations, including scandalising the court and obstructing the administration of justice, held that his disorder did not absolve him of liability, and proceeded to the sentencing stage.
What was Attorney-General v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2023] SGHC 78 about?
The Attorney-General brought two committal applications for contempt of court against Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016. The applications concerned his conduct in two sets of proceedings in November 2021, heard by Hoo Sheau Peng J.
Which court and judge heard the contempt applications against Ravi s/o Madasamy ([2023] SGHC 78)?
The applications were heard in the General Division of the High Court by Hoo Sheau Peng J on 10 October 2022, under Originating Summonses Nos 21 and 22 of 2022. Judgment was reserved and delivered on 31 March 2023.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (6)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 78)