AGC responds to criticisms over warning letter
By Alice Chia
POSTED: 23 Jun 2013 11:47 PM
SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said on Sunday that it has constitutional power to institute and conduct proceedings for criminal contempt.
The AGC had issued a letter of warning to filmmaker Lee Seng Lynn on 14 June.
Ms Lee had published a video of her interview with two ex-SMRT bus drivers in January; the two were involved in an illegal strike.
The AGC was responding to print and online commentaries which raised concerns that it usurped judicial power and that journalistic activities would be stifled.
In a statement, the AGC said the role it plays is enshrined in Article 35(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
As clarified by the Court of Appeal, this includes the power to institute and conduct proceedings for criminal contempt.
The AGC's determination that Ms Lee has committed contempt of court is not the judgment of a court.
It added that similarly, the issuance of a letter of warning does not represent the imposition of any punishment on Ms Lee.
The AGC said this can only be done by the courts upon a judicial determination that an offence or contempt has been committed.
There has thus been no "usurpation of judicial power" by the AGC, nor has AGC "overreached" by issuing the letter of warning to Ms Lee, it said.
The AGC reiterated that it was Ms Lee's publication of the videos, not the making of the videos, that created a risk of prejudice to those criminal proceedings. This is because the videos were published while criminal proceedings against the ex-SMRT drivers -- He Jun Ling, Liu Xiang Ying, Gao Yue Qiang and Wang Xianjie -- were pending.
AGC assessed that Ms Lee's deliberate publication of assertions made by He Jun Ling and Liu Xiang Ying about issues of fact should have been determined at trial by a court.
Criminal proceedings could be impacted even with an experienced judge because of the potential of impact on the deliberation by that judge in the face of public prejudgement, it said.
It could also potentially impact those testifying and could prevent them from giving evidence in an unimpeded way, said the AGC.
If Ms Lee had not published the videos while the criminal proceedings were ongoing but reported the matter to the authorities or published the videos after the proceedings had concluded, she would not have committed contempt of court, added the AGC.
The AGC also responded to assertions that the publication of interviews while criminal proceedings were ongoing was justified because the interviews were of public interest.
The AGC said that on the contrary, this would ignore public interest as it would not allow justice to run its course, free from conduct that might prejudice the fair conduct of a trial.
It said the sub judice rule exists not only to protect persons who are being tried but the integrity of the entire judicial process as well.
It added that the proper forum in which factual issues in an on-going criminal case should be weighed is a court of law, not in a newspaper or commentary piece on an online portal or blog.
The AGC reiterated that it would take firm action to protect the integrity of the judiciary's fact-finding role in court proceedings. This includes instituting committal proceedings for contempt of court.
It however explained that such proceedings are not targeted at legitimate complaints brought to the attention of proper authorities through proper channels, or legitimate criticism of the correctness of judicial decisions after these have been given, so long as such criticism does not involve allegations of bias or partiality on the part of the judiciary.
As for concerns that journalists will hesitate to write about ongoing cases and that a heavy blow would be dealt to investigative reporting, the AGC noted that there were many news reports about the ongoing criminal proceedings against the ex-SMRT drivers, in both print and online media, and none contravened the sub judice rule.
The AGC is of the view that such reporting has always been possible, but Ms Lee crossed the line as her actions had the possibility of affecting fair trial.
- CNA/jc
