Freedom of Speech or Contempt of Court Singapore?

Singapore court holds British writer guilty of contempt

British writer Alan Shadrake has been found guilty of contempt of court for criticising Singapore's judiciary in a book on the city-state's use of the death penalty and faces a possible prison sentence.

High Court judge Quentin Loh said Mr Shadrake, 75, was "guilty of the offence of contempt by scandalising the court." He said the author would be given the opportunity to make amends for his comments in the book, "Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock", but did not say if this would affect sentencing.

In his written judgment, Mr Justice Loh said Mr Shadrake had used a "selective background of truths and half-truths, and sometimes outright falsehoods" in his book, which he said accused Singapore judges of being influenced by executive and diplomatic pressure.

Mr Shadrake, a freelance journalist, was arrested by Singapore authorities in July. He is free on bail, and is due to be sentenced on November 9.

There is no maximum sentence for contempt of court, but M Ravi, Mr Shadrake's lawyer, said prosecutors had asked for a jail term of 3-6 months. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine, prison or both under Singapore law.

"I'm going to read the judgment with Mr Ravi and we are going to discuss how to go forward," Mr Shadrake told reporters after the hearing.

Wealthy Singapore, an island-nation of 5 million people, imposes the death penalty for crimes such as murder and a mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking. It boasts of one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Mr Justice Loh said the court had no interest in stifling debate on the death penalty and was constitutionally bound to protect every citizen's right to engage in such debate.

"But when such debate goes beyond the limits of fair criticism, the law will step in," he said in the judgment. "It does so not for the dignity of the judges. It does so only to ensure the public's confidence in the administration of justice does not falter."

Critics such as Amnesty International have in the past accused Singapore of using strict defamation laws to stifle dissent.

The Foreign Office said it was seeking further information from Singapore authorities.