Duly noted in sentence6/1/2023 ![]() Accordingly, Mr Ravi took the position that the AGC’s requests for a public apology and retraction of the relevant statements were “not only plainly without basis, but also insulting given the fact that treated Gobi’s life with such a blatant disregard, whom was trying to save at the eleventh hour and which he eventually succeeded”. He maintained that there was sufficient basis, “both objective and subjective”, for the statements to be made. In the Reply Letter, Mr Ravi acknowledged that he had made the Interview Statements but rejected the allegation in the DAG’s Letter that the statements had been made with the knowledge that they were false, or that any obligations under the LPA and the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) (the “PCR”) had been breached when he made those statements. The Court of Appeal accepted that in view of the latest decision, in this case the previous decision in the current case of Gobi is demonstrably wrong, and therefore Gobi has suffered a miscarriage of justice.Ģ2 On 22 October 2020, Mr Ravi replied to the DAG’s Letter (the “Reply Letter”). So therefore, when I filed the application, I pointed to the Court that in view of the latest decision, in the case of Adili, this Court of Appeal case on the definition of willful blindness. Demonstrably wrong on the basis that there was another decision by the Court of Appeal that established the principles of willful blindness, which the previous Court of Appeal did not have the benefit. And the Court of Appeal concluded that the previous decision is demonstrably wrong. This has made judicial history in Singapore, because it is for the first time that a case, a death penalty case, which has run its course to the Court of Appeal, after the clemency petition has been rejected by the President on the advice of the Cabinet, after all has been gone and when Gobi or the death penalty inmate has been facing an execution, that this case had been reviewed by the Court after we filed an application, and the Court has reviewed its previous decision, the Court of Appeal. At the time of the alleged misconduct, Mr Ravi was an advocate and solicitor of 20 years’ standing and was practising with Carson Law Chambers. Mr Ravi’s remarks suggested improper conduct on the part of the Attorney-General, the then-Deputy Attorney-General Mr Hri Kumar Nair (the “DAG”), the prosecutors from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (“AGC”) who had been involved in Gobi (Review), and the Law Society. The misconduct that is in issue before us arose out of comments which Mr Ravi made when he was interviewed by The Online Citizen Asia (“TOC Asia”) and other comments he subsequently posted on Facebook following the release of the Court of Appeal’s oral grounds in Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor 1 SLR 180 (“ Gobi (Review)”) on 19 October 2020. 1 C3J/OS 2/2022 (“OS 2”) is an application by the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) for the respondent, Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (“Mr Ravi”), to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |