Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q16926860> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 59 of
59
with 100 triples per page.
- Q16926860 subject Q8425117.
- Q16926860 subject Q8472375.
- Q16926860 subject Q8746377.
- Q16926860 abstract "In Singapore, the offence of scandalizing the court is committed when a person performs any act or publishes any writing that is calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority. An act or statement that alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence. The High Court and the Court of Appeal are empowered by section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 2007 Rev. Ed.) to punish for contempt of court. This provision is statutory recognition of the superior courts' inherent jurisdiction to uphold the proper administration of justice. The Subordinate Courts are also empowered by statute to punish acts of contempt. Although Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore protects every citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression, the High Court has held that the offence of scandalizing the court falls within the category of exceptions from the right to free speech expressly stipulated in Article 14(2)(a). Some commentators have expressed the view that the courts have placed excessive value on protecting the independence of the judiciary, and have given insufficient weight to free speech.Despite the practice in other jurisdictions, in Singapore an "inherent tendency" test has been held to strike the right balance between the right to freedom of speech and the need to protect the dignity and integrity of the courts. To establish the offence, the claimant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act or words complained of have an inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. The inherent tendency test has been held to be justified by the small geographical size of Singapore, the fact that there is no jury system and that judges have to decide both questions of law and fact, and that the test renders proof of damage to the administration of justice unnecessary.Although Singapore law does not set out the sanctions that may be imposed for contempt of court, it is accepted that the courts may impose reasonable fines and imprisonment. To decide what punishment is appropriate, the culpability of the offender and the likely interference with the administration of justice are considered. The only defence available to the offence of scandalizing the court is to prove that the allegedly contemptuous act or statement amounts to fair criticism, which involves showing that the criticism was made respectfully and in good faith.".
- Q16926860 thumbnail CourtofAppeal-OldSupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20080801.jpg?width=300.
- Q16926860 wikiPageExternalLink www.supremecourt.gov.sg.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1003080.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1027.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1058404.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1072991.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1282101.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q13368786.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1370446.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1416831.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q14874268.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1517231.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1522314.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q155736.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q15708607.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q158970.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q16514399.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1710982.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q1753631.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q191783.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q217595.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q2514387.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q2577005.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q2905670.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q2995088.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q30216.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q3059233.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q3135363.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q332142.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q4056086.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q44918.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q5025467.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q5245820.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q5429958.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q6033722.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q6537889.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q694324.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q708562.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q720477.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q7271542.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q7523309.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q758659.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q7631773.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q7655162.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q79896.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q83267.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q833.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q8425117.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q8472375.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q863425.
- Q16926860 wikiPageWikiLink Q8746377.
- Q16926860 comment "In Singapore, the offence of scandalizing the court is committed when a person performs any act or publishes any writing that is calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority. An act or statement that alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence.".
- Q16926860 label "Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore".
- Q16926860 depiction CourtofAppeal-OldSupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20080801.jpg.
- Q16926860 homepage www.supremecourt.gov.sg.