Lawyer Eugene
Thuraisingam fined S$6,000 for contempt of court over Facebook
post
SINGAPORE: Upset and demoralised on the day before his client
was to be executed for drug trafficking, lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam
put up a Facebook post in May scandalising the judiciary.
He alleged that judges – whom he called “million dollar men” – had
“turned blind” to a law that is “cruel and unjust”, and were more
concerned with acquiring wealth and material things.
For that post, Thuraisingam was on Monday (Aug 7) fined S$6,000 for
contempt of court.
“The statement was openly and unreservedly scandalising of the
courts (and) a regrettably deliberate attack on the integrity of
the judiciary,” Justice See Kee Oon said.
Thuraisingam published the post on May 19, hours before his client
Muhammad Ridzuan Mohd Ali was hanged for trafficking 72.50g of
diamorphine. The lawyer, who represented Ridzuan pro bono, said in
an affidavit that he was “extremely upset” on the eve of the
execution and “demoralised that there was nothing further I could
do for him as his lawyer”.
In his affidavit, Thuraisingam said his last meeting with Ridzuan -
three weeks before he was hanged - “still haunts me till today”. He
had difficulty accepting the fact that there was nothing more he
could do to save his client from the gallows.
Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock, who represented Thuraisingam at the
contempt proceedings, said it was clear the lawyer had been
emotionally disturbed and not in the right frame of mind when he
“carelessly” published the post, a 22-line poem he had written
himself.
In handing down the judgment, Justice See said: “I appreciate the
considerable mental strain (Thuraisingam) faces in handling capital
cases on a regular basis.
“In view of the high stakes involved, this is undoubtedly
emotionally training … it is an unenviable task. I recognise that
it is not something every lawyer is prepared to shoulder.”
However, the judge said this was “not merely a careless or
thoughtless post, created on a whim.”
“A careless message on social media might possibly be one
communicated in a sub-140-character tweet. What (Thuraisingam)
posted was of quite a different character,” he added. As a
relatively senior lawyer, “it is unacceptable that he should have
resorted to such recklessly irresponsible conduct.”
When Thuraisingam received word from the Attorney-General’s
Chambers (AGC) that the post was in contempt of court, he removed
it immediately, Mr Ang said. He also published a public apology on
Facebook and gave an interview to The Straits Times, in which he
admitted he had “made a mistake”.
What Thuraisingam wanted to convey, Mr Ang said, was that “the
well-heeled in society do not care about this law (the death
penalty)” as it generally only affects the poor.
Mr Ang added that Thuraisingam had sent an apology letter to the
AGC.
He also pointed to the lawyer’s long history of pro bono work under
the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme and the Legal Assistance Scheme for
Capital Offences.
Senior State Counsel Hui Choon Kuen, on the other hand, sought a
S$10,000 fine on Monday, arguing that Thuraisingam’s statement
“posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the
administration of justice”. He noted that the Facebook post was
shared 357 times as of May 26.
Mr Hui said the fact that Thuraisingam is a lawyer is an
aggravating factor. “He has a duty to defend the courts against
unjust criticism and yet he has done the exact opposite,” he
argued. Thuraisingam had also “employed words of a particularly
gratuitous and offensive bent, by comparing judges to rats”, Mr Hui
added.
The AGC has sent a request to the Law Society of Singapore to have
Mr Thuraisingam’s conduct referred to a Disciplinary
Tribunal.
“(Thuraisingam) may have … removed his Facebook post and
(apologised), but in the nature of how information circulates on
the Internet and social media, it will mean that the damage can
never be completely undone,” said the judge.
Source: CNA/vc
