Contempt by scandalising court, interfering with administration of justice, etc.
3.—(1) Any person who —
(a)
scandalises the court by intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that —
(i)
imputes improper motives to or impugns the integrity, propriety or impartiality of any court; and
(ii)
poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined;
(b)
intentionally publishes any matter that —
(i)
prejudges an issue in a court proceeding that is pending and such prejudgment prejudices, interferes with, or poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with, the course of any court proceeding that is pending; or
(ii)
otherwise prejudices, interferes with, or poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with, the course of any court proceeding that is pending;
(c)
intentionally interferes with (by intimidation or otherwise) or hinders another person’s access to or ability to appear in court, knowing that this person is a party, witness, advocate or judge in ongoing court proceedings;
(d)
intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption or obstruction to any judge of any court, while the judge is sitting in any stage of a court proceeding; or
(e)
intentionally does any other act that interferes with, obstructs or poses a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice in any other manner, if the person knows or ought to have known that the act would interfere with, obstruct or pose a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice,
commits a contempt of court.
Explanation 1.—Fair criticism of a court is not contempt by scandalising the court within the meaning of subsection (1)(a).
Explanation 2.—A publication of any matter which falls within subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii) is not incapable of prejudicing or interfering with or posing a real risk of prejudice to or interference with, the course of any pending court proceedings, by reason only that the court is presided by a judge with legal and professional experience.
Illustration 1
A is charged for rape of B. Z publishes in a newspaper an interview with A’s ex‑girlfriend, Y. In the interview, Y claims that A had previously brutally raped her and that A had served a long prison sentence for raping and molesting other women. The prosecution is not permitted to disclose A’s previous convictions during A’s pending rape trial. Z’s publication of this interview poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with the course of pending court proceedings against A.
Illustration 2
A is charged for inflicting serious bodily harm on B outside a pub. As it was dark, B had difficulty recognising B’s assailant. Z posts on an Internet news site, a photo of A with fists clenched outside the pub with the caption, “Vicious Pub Bully Caught”. The identity of B’s assailant is an issue in A’s pending trial. Z’s publication of A’s photo and caption poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with the course of the pending court proceedings against A.
(2) Where any person publishes any matter or does any act referred to in subsection (1)(a), that person is guilty of contempt of court even if he or she did not intend to scandalise the court.
(3) Where any person publishes any matter referred to in subsection (1)(b), that person is guilty of contempt of court even if he or she did not intend to cause the consequences referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii).
(4) A statement made by a person on behalf of the Government about the subject matter of or an issue in a court proceeding that is pending is not contempt of court under subsection (1)(b) if the Government believes that the statement is necessary in the public interest.
Illustration 1
A statement made by a person on behalf of the Government factually describing the events and circumstances relating to and leading up to the death of a person (such as the acts of public officials when a coroner’s inquiry into that person’s death is pending) which the Government believes is necessary to address inaccurate or incorrect public allegations, is not contempt of court by virtue of subsection (4).
Illustration 2
A statement made by a person on behalf of the Government factually describing the circumstances of a riot, when criminal proceedings against a person charged with participation in that riot are pending, which the Government believes is necessary in order to inform the public of the riot, is not contempt of court by virtue of subsection (4).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), “necessary in the public interest” includes but is not limited to matters that are necessary in the interests of the security of Singapore or any part of Singapore, public order, public health or public finances.
(6) Where contempt of court is committed by the doing of any act mentioned in subsection (1)(c) or (d), a person is guilty of contempt of court if that person knows or ought to have known that the act would prejudice or interfere with or obstruct or pose a real risk of prejudice to or interference with or obstruction of the course of the court proceeding.