- Joined
- Jul 16, 2012
- Messages
- 283
- Points
- 18
That is in First World England and Wales. For peasants of Third World Sinkieland, they will have to continue to live under the yoke of an oppressive LEEgime, whose Attorney General has recently issued proceedings for contempt against some bloggers for “scandalising” the Sinkie Courts. Thank you my dear Singaporeans for not having the balls to stand up for your rights.
Two days ago (23rd April), the Lords gave the Court and Crimes Bill its seal of approval. All that remains for this Bill to become law is royal assent, which is a formality in a Constitutional monarchy.
Included in this Bill is the following provision:
“Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.”
Excerpts from speeches made in the House of Lords debate on 10th December 2012
Lord Pannick:
“It is no longer necessary to maintain as part of our law of contempt of court a criminal offence of insulting judges by statements or publications out of court. The judiciary has no need for such protection. The wise judge normally ignores insults out of court. Judges, of course, are as entitled as anyone else to bring proceedings for libel, and some have done so.
The law of scandalising the judiciary could have been left in the moribund state in which it has rested for many years. However, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland unwisely chose earlier this year to seek to breathe life into it by bringing a prosecution, later dropped, against Peter Hain MP for some critical comments he had made in his autobiography concerning a Northern Ireland judge. That prosecution had two main consequences. First, it substantially increased the sales of Mr Hain's book and secondly, it led to this amendment.
Much of the criticism to which judges are subjected is ill informed and unsubstantiated. However, even where criticism is unjustified, it should not be a criminal offence. As Justice Albie Sachs said on this subject in a judgment in the Constitutional Court of South Africa in 2001, respect for the courts will be all the stronger, to the degree that it is earned, rather than to the extent that it is commanded.”
Lord Lester:
“My Lords, I declare a former professional interest in that I acted for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the aborted contempt proceedings in relation to Peter Hain and his publisher. I am extremely grateful to the AG for Northern Ireland for his entirely misguided decision to move for committal because, but for that, I would not be standing here in support of the amendment. We owe everything to the AG because it was that which caused me to contact the Law Commission and the Government, and to discuss the matter with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the first place.
The other antique and archaic speech crimes of sedition, seditious libel, defamatory libel, obscene libel and blasphemous libel were all abolished by the previous Government and Parliament for similar reasons connected with free speech.
I should like to make one other point. Although abolishing this crime in this country will make very little difference because the law is entirely obsolete, it will make a difference in the rest of the common law world. Although this is an outmoded and archaic offence, there remain many parts of the common law world where it is enforced. The most notorious example occurred in Singapore last year, where Mr Alan Shadrake, who wrote a book criticising the Singapore judiciary's attitude towards the death penalty, was committed for contempt, sentenced to prison, fined and told to pay legal costs. This gentleman, who is about my age and a distinguished senior writer, was condemned in that way, with the Singapore Court of Appeal applying its view on our case law and this offence. By abolishing the offence today we do not really change much in this part of the world because, apart from what happened in Northern Ireland, it is simply never invoked anymore. However it will send an important message across the common law world.”
Sinkie AG still doesn’t get it
Seven days later, on 17th December 2012, the Smelly Sinkie AG sent a letter to Mr. Leslie Chew demanding that he apologises and takes down the cartoon “Demon-cratic Singapore Episode #438, Eliminating the thorn first …” or else be prosecuted for scandalising Sinkie Courts. Leslie has stood his ground and five months later is being prosecuted by your Smelly Sinkie AG. What took the AG so long to institute proceedings? Just a coincidence or is it timed to scare people away from criticising upcoming verdicts on this and some other cases (Peter Lim, CHC, etc)?
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...ase-don’t-be-fooled-by-the-Latest-Sex-Scandal!
Now, are Singaporeans still in any doubt that their AG has FAILED to receive the important message that the Grandmother of all Westminster models have recently sent out? Or this Stinky Smelly AG does not understand this simple sentence:
“Respect for the courts will be all the stronger, to the degree that it is earned, rather than to the extent that it is commanded.”
Let the People Judge!
Rumpole of the Bailey
* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.
Two days ago (23rd April), the Lords gave the Court and Crimes Bill its seal of approval. All that remains for this Bill to become law is royal assent, which is a formality in a Constitutional monarchy.
Included in this Bill is the following provision:
“Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.”
Excerpts from speeches made in the House of Lords debate on 10th December 2012
Lord Pannick:
“It is no longer necessary to maintain as part of our law of contempt of court a criminal offence of insulting judges by statements or publications out of court. The judiciary has no need for such protection. The wise judge normally ignores insults out of court. Judges, of course, are as entitled as anyone else to bring proceedings for libel, and some have done so.
The law of scandalising the judiciary could have been left in the moribund state in which it has rested for many years. However, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland unwisely chose earlier this year to seek to breathe life into it by bringing a prosecution, later dropped, against Peter Hain MP for some critical comments he had made in his autobiography concerning a Northern Ireland judge. That prosecution had two main consequences. First, it substantially increased the sales of Mr Hain's book and secondly, it led to this amendment.
Much of the criticism to which judges are subjected is ill informed and unsubstantiated. However, even where criticism is unjustified, it should not be a criminal offence. As Justice Albie Sachs said on this subject in a judgment in the Constitutional Court of South Africa in 2001, respect for the courts will be all the stronger, to the degree that it is earned, rather than to the extent that it is commanded.”
Lord Lester:
“My Lords, I declare a former professional interest in that I acted for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the aborted contempt proceedings in relation to Peter Hain and his publisher. I am extremely grateful to the AG for Northern Ireland for his entirely misguided decision to move for committal because, but for that, I would not be standing here in support of the amendment. We owe everything to the AG because it was that which caused me to contact the Law Commission and the Government, and to discuss the matter with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the first place.
The other antique and archaic speech crimes of sedition, seditious libel, defamatory libel, obscene libel and blasphemous libel were all abolished by the previous Government and Parliament for similar reasons connected with free speech.
I should like to make one other point. Although abolishing this crime in this country will make very little difference because the law is entirely obsolete, it will make a difference in the rest of the common law world. Although this is an outmoded and archaic offence, there remain many parts of the common law world where it is enforced. The most notorious example occurred in Singapore last year, where Mr Alan Shadrake, who wrote a book criticising the Singapore judiciary's attitude towards the death penalty, was committed for contempt, sentenced to prison, fined and told to pay legal costs. This gentleman, who is about my age and a distinguished senior writer, was condemned in that way, with the Singapore Court of Appeal applying its view on our case law and this offence. By abolishing the offence today we do not really change much in this part of the world because, apart from what happened in Northern Ireland, it is simply never invoked anymore. However it will send an important message across the common law world.”
Sinkie AG still doesn’t get it
Seven days later, on 17th December 2012, the Smelly Sinkie AG sent a letter to Mr. Leslie Chew demanding that he apologises and takes down the cartoon “Demon-cratic Singapore Episode #438, Eliminating the thorn first …” or else be prosecuted for scandalising Sinkie Courts. Leslie has stood his ground and five months later is being prosecuted by your Smelly Sinkie AG. What took the AG so long to institute proceedings? Just a coincidence or is it timed to scare people away from criticising upcoming verdicts on this and some other cases (Peter Lim, CHC, etc)?
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...ase-don’t-be-fooled-by-the-Latest-Sex-Scandal!
Now, are Singaporeans still in any doubt that their AG has FAILED to receive the important message that the Grandmother of all Westminster models have recently sent out? Or this Stinky Smelly AG does not understand this simple sentence:
“Respect for the courts will be all the stronger, to the degree that it is earned, rather than to the extent that it is commanded.”
Let the People Judge!
Rumpole of the Bailey
* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.
Last edited:
