Ass Loon APPLIES FOR JUDGEMENT TO BE PASSED ON DEFAMATION CASE WITHOUT A FULL TRIAL
PM LEE APPLIES FOR JUDGEMENT TO BE PASSED ON DEFAMATION CASE WITHOUT A FULL TRIAL
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
11 Jul 2014 - 6:17pm
<ins style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
PM Lee Hsien Loong's team of lawyers have
made an application to the court for a summary judgement to be passed in the defamation suit that he brought against Blogger Roy Ngerng.
A summary judgement is a ruling which can be made in some civil (non-criminal) cases without the case having to go through a formal trial.
They are sometimes sought in cases where there is no disagreement on the material facts of the case. Both parties generally agree on what happened but are in dispute about whether the actions of the parties have amounted to a wrong.
In this case a summary judgement has been sought as both parties agree that Roy had published an article and there is no dispute about the contents of that article or the other content which he later posted online.
Records of what was written are accessible and clearly recorded and there is no dispute about what actually happened.
The only things that is in dispute is whether or not what Roy had written amounts to defamation.
Roy had not explicitly written that PM Lee was criminally misappropriating CPF funds. He had only used a graphic which was of a similar style as one used earlier to describe the City Harvest Church criminal misappropriation case.
PM Lee had said that using the same sort of graphic had implied that he was criminally misappropriating CPF funds. However, Roy argues that he had only been pointing out that the flow of money was highly confusing and lacked transparency.
He also argues that when the image is read in the context of the entire article, where he goes on to talk only about the lack of accountability and transparency, it is clear that he was not accusing PM Lee of criminal misappropriation.
Whether or not Roy had defamed PM Lee lies mainly on this point of what the image, used in the way it was used, had meant and this is what PM Lee has asked the court to determine through a summary judgement.
PM Lee's lawyers have asked the courts to decide what "the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and images" used in Roy's article is.
In PM Lee's submission to the courts, his lawyers had argued that Roy "has no defence" and is guilty of defamation, therefore, the only thing to be determined is how much money Roy owes PM Lee in damages.
If he is found guilty of defamation, Roy will need to pay damages to PM Lee. Mr Lee is also pushing for Roy to pay for his legal costs and wants to get a court order to have Roy stop publishing or sharing content that implies that PM Lee is criminally misappropriating CPF money.
Roy lawyer M Ravi has explained that he will be "vigorously resist[ing]" the application for a summary judgement so that the case can have a full trial.
