The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has warned of stern action against those who make contemptuous allegations against a judge in order to get another judge to hear their case.
Such "judge-shopping or forum-shopping" amounts to a serious interference with the administration of justice, said an AGC spokesman in the first case here where a litigant was found guilty of court contempt for allegations made in his affidavits.
The AGC remarks last Thursday came in response to queries from The Straits Times in relation to the High Court's judgment a day earlier which found Ong Wui Teck guilty of "scandalising contempt and contempt in the face of the court".
Justice Belinda Ang, who heard the case, said Ong's allegations were baseless and "his wilful insults clearly went beyond the legal scales for recusal applications, traversing into the law of contempt and breaching the same".
A recusal application refers to an attempt to have a judge or prosecutor withdrawn.
Ong had made various allegations against Justice Woo Bih Li and the Supreme Court in two affidavits he filed in 2016, to support his attempt to have Justice Woo recused from hearing all actions related to his mother's estate.
He had claimed "biasness", prejudgment and lack of independence on the part of Justice Woo, who was also the trial judge in an earlier action relating to his father's estate.
When the judge heard Ong's call to recuse himself, he decided to do so because he intended to complain about Ong's conduct to the appropriate authorities.
The AGC subsequently notified Ong that his allegations in the affidavits in the recusal application were in contempt. But he still refused to withdraw his allegations and apologise.
In 2017, the Attorney-General obtained leave from the High Court to apply for a committal order for contempt against Ong, listing in the application some 18 allegations he had made.
At the committal hearing last August, the AG, represented by Mr Khoo Boo Jin, Ms Elaine Liew and Ms May Ng, argued that all the allegations exceeded what is fair criticism typical in a recusal application and that Ong's motive was to "forum shop". Mr Khoo added that the language Ong used was "outrageous and abusive" and unsupported by evidence.
Ong, who represented himself in the hearing, claimed there were rational bases for his allegations, arguing his criticism of Justice Woo was necessary to succeed in his move to have the judge recuse himself.
Justice Ang found Ong's allegations of "extreme biasness" against Justice Woo were not made in good faith, and posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
She said Ong was simply interested in "procuring Justice Woo's recusal" from various legal proceedings. His sentencing date is due to be fixed.
Common law was applied in Ong's case as the allegations were made before the commencement date of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act on Oct 1, 2017.
The AGC clarified that the common law of contempt provides that statements made in good faith in an affidavit, or to seek the disqualification of a judge, do not amount to contempt of court. This was not the case with Mr Ong's affidavits.
"This is the first Singapore case where a person has been found guilty of contempt of court for allegations made in his affidavits.
"However, there have been similar cases in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong " said an AGC spokesman.
Correction note: The article has been edited to reflect the correct spelling of Ms Elaine Liew's surname.
