SINGAPORE: State counsels on Monday (Oct 10) urged a court to commit lawyer M Ravi for contempt of court over his conduct in court proceedings where he allegedly insulted two judges and acted without his clients’ instructions.
Mr Ravi flew in from the United Kingdom to represent himself after his lawyers from Mr Eugene Thuraisingam’s eponymous law firm were discharged on Friday due to disagreements with their client.
Mr Ravi, who has bipolar disorder, said it did not “dignify the state” to bring contempt of court proceedings against a vulnerable person. He told the court that the proceedings against him were “overkill”, saying he was already facing five disciplinary tribunals.
After hearing both sides, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng adjourned the matter to deliberate on her decision. Should Mr Ravi be found in contempt of court, the issue of punishment will be dealt with at a later stage.
The Attorney-General was presented by four state counsels, led by Mr Adrian Loo. He urged the court to grant an order to commit Mr Ravi for contempt of court in two cases: One in the district court against District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt, and one in the high court against Justice Audrey Lim.
In the first case, Mr Ravi allegedly lied to Judge Chay in November 2021 that he could commence trial for a client, confirming that he had no hearings the next day. However, he was actually handling another trial for another client.
The next day, he did not appear for trial until 11am and one of his clients had to represent himself, said Mr Loo.
When the judge asked Mr Ravi why he had taken on two trials, Mr Ravi allegedly claimed that the judge was biased. He did so in front of his client and members of the public who were in the court, said Mr Loo.
The second case was also in November 2021, when Mr Ravi was representing Mr Chua Qwong Meng and other bus drivers accusing SBS Transit of unfair work practices. He made repeated allegations that Justice Lim, who presided over the trial, was biased, said Mr Loo.
Mr Ravi also repeatedly interrupted the judge and told her that he did not trust her explanation.
According to a medical report, Mr Ravi was suffering from a relapse of his bipolar disorder at the time. But Mr Loo said Mr Ravi knew what was going on and that his cognitive abilities were not affected.
“The evidence here is that even though his ability to hold back may have been affected by his mental condition, he clearly intended to say what he said and he meant what he said,” said Mr Loo.
AGC HOUNDING ME: M RAVI
In his arguments, Mr Ravi said AGC had been “hounding” him with investigations. He also alleged that AGC had yet to apologise for their “threats” and “harassment”.
He said he had already been prohibited from practising as a lawyer, but was not allowed to rest while on medical leave from December 2021 to May 2022.
Mr Ravi said the AGC took up “a lot of applications” against him while he was on medical leave, adding that five disciplinary tribunals have commenced against him – such that even the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) “cannot cope”.
He initially asked to have the hearing adjourned so he could file further arguments on how the Singapore judiciary was “unprofessional” due to a lack of security of tenure, and the number of public prosecutors appointed as judges.
But Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said she could continue to hear the case, and might allow him to file his arguments later.
Mr Ravi opened his arguments by saying he had a preliminary application that all the state counsels acting in proceedings against him have acted in contempt of court.
He claimed they came into contact with privileged communications between himself and his paralegal.
The state counsels had breached professional legal privilege, Mr Ravi added, claiming that due process was not followed.
He asked for the entire set of proceedings to be set aside on grounds of a breach of fair trial.
“The crucial question for this court is – how can you treat a vulnerable person (like this) in a contempt of court proceedings? The AG acknowledges that I have bipolar disorder. There’s enough policy in the courts that a person with mental disorder is a vulnerable person,” said Mr Ravi.
He said the AG had taken a “very clinical approach” by pointing out what he said without recognising that he was a vulnerable person with bipolar disorder.
“I want the court to recognise that I should be given, at the outset, dignity,” he said. “A vulnerable person should not be dragged into contempt of court proceedings in this manner. I already have occupational hazards, being an anti-death penalty advocate.”
Mr Ravi said that as lawyers, the prosecutors would be familiar with occupational hazards such as stress.
“I just wish one day they will walk into my shoes and understand how representing 26 inmates (on death row) – the anxiety I go through, even without bipolar disorder, is tremendous!” said Mr Ravi.
At the time of the alleged contempt of court incidents, Mr Ravi was representing multiple convicts on death row for offences like drugs and murder.
There was “higher” anxiety over such cases as the appellants faced death, he said.
He pointed to the “huge amount of anxiety” he faced while handling the Court of Appeal case for Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran Dharmalingam.
Mr Ravi said he should not be held to a “crushing standard”, adding that complaints had already been filed against him to various authorities for the matters pertaining to Judge Chay and Justice Lim.
“This is an overkill. It has a crushing effect on a person. It has even more effect when it’s a vulnerable person,” said Mr Ravi, referring to himself.
He said his remarks against the judges were fair criticism, and that he could have been in a state of “heightened anxiety” while concerned about protecting his clients’ rights and “labouring under (a relapse of his) bipolar disorder”.
“It does not dignify the state to bring these proceedings against someone who is vulnerable,” said Mr Ravi. “Only a sick society would kick a sick person and these proceedings have also violated my right to fair trial.”
On Monday, he also alleged that state counsel Mr Loo had made a joke on a previous occasion at the State Courts, when Mr Ravi was waiting for an update on whether his impounded passport would be released.
He claimed that Mr Loo “made a laugh” about Mr Ravi’s situation.
Mr Loo said he categorically denied these allegations and that they were irrelevant in any case.
Justice Hoo adjourned the matter and said there might be a pre-trial conference thereafter on further directions.