SINGAPORE: Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 13) passed a law clarifying the threshold when egregious abuse of the legal process amounts to contempt of court.
The Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill comes after notable examples of abuse of process have been observed in Singapore, Minister of State for Law Murali Pillai said.
"It is the government's responsibility to act to protect the judicial system, especially when we have repeated pronouncements from our courts on the abuse of their processes," he said.
The Bill amends the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, which was passed in 2016 and consolidates Singapore's law on contempt of court.
Contempt of court is conduct that may impede the court's ability to function. It can take the form of interference with court proceedings or disobedience of court orders.
The Act already covers egregious abuse of process, but only in broad language, Mr Pillai said.
The amendments aim to clarify what kinds of conduct will amount to contempt of court, and deter abuse of process by making it clear such conduct can be punished, he said.
The Bill sets out three categories of conduct that constitute contempt by interfering with the administration of justice:
The Bill also makes it clear that third parties who cause or abet the egregious abuse of process can also be found liable for contempt.
Mr Pillai stressed that the amendments are clarificatory, and do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court.
The impact of egregious abuse of process can be very serious, and can erode trust in the justice system over time, Mr Pillai said.
Defendants can be forced to bear the financial and psychological burden of legal proceedings for matters that should not go to court at all.
Limited public and court resources are diverted away from other deserving cases, putting strain on the court system.
Mr Pillai said a trend of "lawfare" – starting legal claims that have no merit in order to oppress others or for ulterior motives – has been observed in Singapore and other countries.
He also cited a 2023 lecture in which Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said recent examples suggest that "truth decay" is spreading into court proceedings, and that some people have tried to conceal facts from the courts or delay court proceedings without grounds.
One example is the 2022 case of Mohammad Farid Batra, a convicted drug courier sentenced to life imprisonment and caning. He filed three post-appeal applications.
These applications were dismissed, with the High Court finding that Farid's claim was completely baseless and made with the purpose of delaying and avoiding his caning. Offenders aged 50 and above cannot be caned.
The amendments come two years after parliament passed the Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill, which came into effect this June.
Under that Bill, death row prisoners who have exhausted all avenues for appeal or clemency and are found to have abused court processes will not be allowed to file a post-appeal application.
Members of parliament raised the following concerns:
In general, Mr Pillai stressed that the amendments were carefully scoped to cover egregious abuse of process, did not change the current standards that lawyers need to uphold, and did not represent a change in position on third parties who can be found liable for contempt.
On striking the right balance, Mr Pillai also cited the government's efforts to improve access to justice to date, such as specialised courts with simplified processes, the Legal Aid Bureau and the Public Defender's Office.
On drawing the line between a groundless case and a case that lacks merit, Mr Pillai said that even if a case were found to be without merit, this would not amount to contempt of court under the amendments.
There must be "other abusive factors", such as bringing the legal claim for an improper purpose or making multiple or successive such claims.
As for third parties who can be found liable for contempt of court, the law covers those who instigate others to commit egregious abuse of process, he said.
In response to a question from Ms Sylvia Lim (WP-Aljunied) on whether the Ministry of Law consulted the Law Society, Mr Pillai said the ministry did, and spoke with senior members of the Bar.
"There was consensus on the importance of safeguarding our justice system," he said. "There were also concerns from some lawyers as to whether these amendments would hamper them from doing their best for their clients, particularly in difficult cases."
But he reiterated that lawyers who exercise reasonable care and act in good faith "will not be caught and have nothing to fear", and that the amendments do not lower the threshold for contempt of court.
Continue reading...
The Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill comes after notable examples of abuse of process have been observed in Singapore, Minister of State for Law Murali Pillai said.
"It is the government's responsibility to act to protect the judicial system, especially when we have repeated pronouncements from our courts on the abuse of their processes," he said.
WHAT THE BILL PROPOSES
The Bill amends the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, which was passed in 2016 and consolidates Singapore's law on contempt of court.
Contempt of court is conduct that may impede the court's ability to function. It can take the form of interference with court proceedings or disobedience of court orders.
The Act already covers egregious abuse of process, but only in broad language, Mr Pillai said.
The amendments aim to clarify what kinds of conduct will amount to contempt of court, and deter abuse of process by making it clear such conduct can be punished, he said.
The Bill sets out three categories of conduct that constitute contempt by interfering with the administration of justice:
- A court proceeding that the person knows or should have known involves a deception on the court, is fictitious, or constitutes a mere sham
- A court proceeding that the person knows or should have known is manifestly groundless or without foundation, and also involves the legal process being used for an ulterior or improper purpose
- Multiple or successive court proceedings that the person knows or should have known are manifestly groundless or without foundation
The Bill also makes it clear that third parties who cause or abet the egregious abuse of process can also be found liable for contempt.
Mr Pillai stressed that the amendments are clarificatory, and do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court.
WHY IT MATTERS
The impact of egregious abuse of process can be very serious, and can erode trust in the justice system over time, Mr Pillai said.
Defendants can be forced to bear the financial and psychological burden of legal proceedings for matters that should not go to court at all.
Limited public and court resources are diverted away from other deserving cases, putting strain on the court system.
Mr Pillai said a trend of "lawfare" – starting legal claims that have no merit in order to oppress others or for ulterior motives – has been observed in Singapore and other countries.
He also cited a 2023 lecture in which Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said recent examples suggest that "truth decay" is spreading into court proceedings, and that some people have tried to conceal facts from the courts or delay court proceedings without grounds.
One example is the 2022 case of Mohammad Farid Batra, a convicted drug courier sentenced to life imprisonment and caning. He filed three post-appeal applications.
These applications were dismissed, with the High Court finding that Farid's claim was completely baseless and made with the purpose of delaying and avoiding his caning. Offenders aged 50 and above cannot be caned.
The amendments come two years after parliament passed the Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill, which came into effect this June.
Under that Bill, death row prisoners who have exhausted all avenues for appeal or clemency and are found to have abused court processes will not be allowed to file a post-appeal application.
Related:
WHAT MPS SAID
Members of parliament raised the following concerns:
- How to strike the balance of deterring bad-faith actors from abusing court processes, while not discouraging claimants who have genuine grievances from seeking justice
- The impact on lawyers, including their willingness to take on pro bono or challenging cases, if they could be held in contempt of court under the newly defined categories
- How the law will differentiate between a case that is manifestly groundless and a case that lacks merit, also considering there are already court procedures for civil cases to be struck out for lacking merit
- The liability of third parties who cause or abet egregious abuse of process, and whether this extends to funding or crowdfunding baseless legal claims, and non-government organisations that give support to claimants
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO CONCERNS
In general, Mr Pillai stressed that the amendments were carefully scoped to cover egregious abuse of process, did not change the current standards that lawyers need to uphold, and did not represent a change in position on third parties who can be found liable for contempt.
On striking the right balance, Mr Pillai also cited the government's efforts to improve access to justice to date, such as specialised courts with simplified processes, the Legal Aid Bureau and the Public Defender's Office.
On drawing the line between a groundless case and a case that lacks merit, Mr Pillai said that even if a case were found to be without merit, this would not amount to contempt of court under the amendments.
There must be "other abusive factors", such as bringing the legal claim for an improper purpose or making multiple or successive such claims.
As for third parties who can be found liable for contempt of court, the law covers those who instigate others to commit egregious abuse of process, he said.
In response to a question from Ms Sylvia Lim (WP-Aljunied) on whether the Ministry of Law consulted the Law Society, Mr Pillai said the ministry did, and spoke with senior members of the Bar.
"There was consensus on the importance of safeguarding our justice system," he said. "There were also concerns from some lawyers as to whether these amendments would hamper them from doing their best for their clients, particularly in difficult cases."
But he reiterated that lawyers who exercise reasonable care and act in good faith "will not be caught and have nothing to fear", and that the amendments do not lower the threshold for contempt of court.
Continue reading...