SINGAPORE: The High Court has dismissed applications by activist Kirsten Han in relation to a conditional warning she received last year for contempt of court over a Facebook post.
Ms Han had published a Facebook post on May 10 last year, stating: “Such staggering cost orders against lawyers who were merely trying to fight for their (clients’) lives (literal, not figurative) are acts of intimidation that deter other lawyers from taking on late-stage death row cases.”
She added: “When we create a climate of fear that deters lawyers from representing death row prisoners, we create an ever more brittle system in which it will become even more likely that wrongful executions and miscarriages of justice will occur.”
Ms Han, an activist, had made the post by sharing lawyer M Ravi’s own post and adding her own words to it.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers found that Ms Han’s post amounted to contempt of court and sought the Singapore Police Force’s assistance to convey a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution to Ms Han.
Deputy Superintendent Seet Hui Li called Ms Han on Oct 11, 2022, asking her to meet at the Ang Mo Kio Police Division Headquarters the following week in relation to the Facebook post.
Ms Han asked her some questions, but DSP Seet said more details would be given during the meeting in person.
Ms Han later agreed to meet DSP Seet at the police division, but subsequently called DSP Seet again to request a written letter stating that she was required to present herself at the police station.
DSP Seet told Ms Han that there was no need for a letter as the police could request her attendance without issuing one. Despite this, DSP sent Ms Han a letter via email and Ms Han went down to the police station on Oct 21, 2022, where she was given the warning.
Under the warning, Ms Han was to remain crime-free for a period of 12 months or risk prosecution for any new offence on top of the original one of contempt of court.
Ms Han asked DSP Seet which part of the Facebook post had constituted contempt of court and asked if she could challenge the warning.
DSP Seet told Ms Han that she could seek legal advice and send any enquiries to the police, who would convey them to the AGC.
Later that evening, Ms Han applied online for a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) – referring to a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of an offence.
She followed up on this request twice, telling DSP Seet in her third email that she would commence legal proceedings if she did not receive the FIR by a stated date.
SPF did not respond by her deadline, and Ms Han filed an originating application for permission to commence judicial review on Nov 11, 2022.
Three days after this, SPF told Ms Han via email that they were unable to supply her with the requested document.
In January 2023, AGC wrote to Ms Han’s lawyers explaining that no FIR had been filed with the police in connection with the warning. This was because AGC had decided to issue the conditional warning in lieu of instituting proceedings against Ms Han, and SPF’s role was to convey the warning.
“We trust that the foregoing makes clear that there is no basis for your client to bring a claim for production of a non-existent FIR,” wrote AGC.
In Ms Han’s application, she applied for three things: An order to quash the conditional warning; a declaration that SPF had no power to compel her physical attendance in order to issue her the warning; and a mandatory order for her to be given the FIR.
In a judgment published on Friday (May 12), Justice Kwek Mean Luck dismissed Ms Han’s case entirely.
He explained that the warning does not have legal effect and is not susceptible to judicial review, which was effectively what Ms Han was applying for when she asked for a quashing order.
Justice Kwek added that the second request is ancillary or works on the same concept as the first, and dismissed it as well.
He added that it would have been dismissed as there was no “real controversy”, since Ms Han had not been compelled to provide her physical attendance to the police.
In dismissing the third request, Justice Kwek said there was no FIR in respect of the warning.
He asked parties to file submissions of costs within seven days.