Singapore to criminalize ‘egregious abuses’ of court process News
Basile Morin, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Singapore to criminalize ‘egregious abuses’ of court process

The Singapore Ministry of Law introduced the Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, 2024, to Parliament on Monday. The bill aims to safeguard the process of administering justice and prevent the misuse of court procedures.

Introduced by Minister of Law Murali Pillai the amendment updates the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, 2016, which consolidated laws related to contempt of court. The amendment expands the definition of “contempt of the court” if proceedings are initiated even though the litigant knows the matter to be fictitious or groundless, or to have such elements. The provision also deems filing fictitious claims for the purpose of delaying criminal proceedings to constitute contempt of court. Any individual who abets these abuses will be equally guilty of contempt. The determination of such conduct shall be done by the court, and those who act with reasonable care and good faith shall not be punished.

The proposal follows several cases that the court found to be initiated with “ulterior motives.” If passed, the law will apply to all courts of Singapore. If a person is found to be in contempt of the High Court or Supreme Court, they can be fined up to 100,000 Singapore dollars and receive an imprisonment sentence of up to three years. The Ministry of Law stated that:

Egregious cases of abuse of court processes undermine the authority of the court and impede the administration of justice. This can impact the reputation of Singapore’s legal system and lead to an erosion of trust in our court system. Such cases also cause financial and psychological harm to the individuals who are forced to defend unmeritorious claims.

In 2016, Amnesty International criticized Singapore’s criminal contempt of court for granting the authorities “far-reaching powers” to quell criticisms against the judiciary “under the guise of protecting the judicial system.” The group was worried that the 2016 Act would deter public discussions on any judicial proceedings.

The amendment is currently tabled in the parliament, with the first reading scheduled to take place soon.