[ad_1]
A disciplinary court (DT) has determined that activist attorney M. Ravi should be ordered to pay a fine of at least $ 10,000 for unsubstantiated attacks against state prosecutors and a superior district judge.
The attacks were contained in a press release published by Ravi, 51, and posted online in July last year.
The DT, appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon last November and comprised of Senior Counsel Lee Kim Shin and Chief Counsel Harish Kumar, concluded that Mr. Ravi “intended to issue bias against state prosecutors. and against Mr. (Bala) Reddy as a judge in the state courts. “
In reasons for the decision issued last month, the court said that Ravi should pay “a sanction that is sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed.”
He added that the sum “must not be less than $ 10,000.”
Mr. Ravi was also ordered to pay $ 3,000 in costs to the Law Society that processed the case.
The Lawyers Society, in response to a complaint filed by the Attorney General in August last year, filed three charges against Mr. Ravi under different sections of the Law on the Legal Profession read with the Rules of the Legal Profession ( professional conduct).
Ravi’s attacks were contained in a press release he issued at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on July 23 last year, together with a Malaysian civil society group.
It was also posted online the same day as part of an article titled “Judicial Error: The Urgency of Saving the Life of Malaysian Nagenthran on Singapore’s Death Row.”
The first charge concerned three statements attacking the impartiality and integrity of state prosecutors in Singapore. The second count concerned a similar number of statements containing unsubstantiated attacks on Superior District Judge Reddy, a practicing state court judge, alleging that he was biased against defense psychiatrists.
The court determined that the third charge against Ravi, which involved charges leveled against the judiciary, was not prepared.
On August 20 last year, his then-attorney, Eugene Thuraisingam, informed the Law Society that Ravi had dropped the allegations and unconditionally apologized, attaching a screenshot of the apology to Ravi’s Facebook post.
But Ravi contested the charges at DT’s March hearing despite previously apologizing and withdrawing the press release.
The court, after considering the evidence, found him guilty of two alternative counts of improper misconduct of an attorney and solicitor as an official of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honorable profession within the meaning of Section 83 (2) (h ) of the Law on the Legal Profession (Cap. 161).
The court said: “For the alternative charges, we do not need to make a final conclusion as to whether (Mr. Ravi) was acting in a professional or personal capacity, as S 83 (2) (h) of the LPA covers conduct in both capabilities.
“It is well established that ‘improper conduct of an advocate and attorney’ is not limited to misconduct in the attorney’s professional capacity, but also extends to misconduct in the attorney’s personal capacity. In other words, the Article 83 (2) (h) covers, rather than excludes, misconduct in the attorney’s professional capacity. “
[ad_2]
