'Chilling effect' of big libel awards

IF POLITICIANS keep winning draconian amounts for libel, the "chilling effect" will be to inhibit the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Constitution, Queen's Counsel Charles Gray argued yesterday at the hearing of Mr Tang Liang Hong's appeals.

Was it acceptable in a mature democracy for defamation laws to be used to stifle debate and snuff out opposition, he asked.

"History is littered with cases of the big boys trying to hijack the courts ... If people tone down or keep their mouths shut because they are inhibited from voicing minority views, that in itself is a reason for moderating the damages." The QC, representing the defeated Workers' Party candidate in 14 appeals in 13 suits, urged the Court of Appeal to reach key conclusions in this "sorry saga" involving a "victim of an injustice".

In May, Mr Tang was ordered to pay a record $8.075 million in libel damages to 11 People's Action Party leaders, including Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Mr Tang, who fled Singapore soon after the Jan 2 General Election, was not represented in May after he discharged his lawyers on the first day of the hearing.

Mr Gray is facing what he called the same "platoon" of lawyers for the PAP side, including Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and Tan Kok Quan, who won the May case. He noted yesterday that their costs would come up to another $3 million. Appearing before Justices M. Karthigesu, L.P. Thean and G.P. Selvam, he argued: That Justice Lai Kew Chai should have disqualified himself from the January hearing at which he ordered the worldwide $11.2 million Mareva injunction freezing the assets of Mr Tang and his wife, Teo Siew Har.

Mr Gray said Justice Lai was not only known to be at least an acquaintance of SM Lee, but had himself received a discount on a Nassim Jade apartment, the subject of some controversy last year.

The QC stressed that no one was accusing the judge of actual bias, but the suspicion of "a real likelihood of bias" meant that justice was not seen to be done. That the order made by Justice Goh Joon Seng in March, to strike out Mr Tang's defences in these suits, should be set aside as it was based on Mr Tang's failure to comply with the Mareva injunction.

That injunction is void or voidable in law, as it was made by a judge who should have disqualified himself, Mr Gray argued. It was also "100 miles" from normal injunctions on fraudsters who might spirit money away. That the $8.075 million damages were "grotesque", "grossly excessive" and out of all proportion to any injury or hurt the plaintiffs suffered. The award, by Justice Chao Hick Tin, was also based on a "complete misapprehension" of a vital fact, through no fault of the judge.

Much of the case, Mr Gray pointed out, rested on the belief that Mr Tang caused the publication of the police reports, when it was the PM and SM, by their admission, who released them to the media on Jan 2 to gain political advantage themselves.

The mistaken point that Mr Tang had released the reports was the ground for aggravation of damages in all the suits, which he said progressed with "indecent haste" compared with applications filed by Mr Tang and his wife.

Mr Gray also argued that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, who is assisting him, did not conduct himself improperly when the latter acted in Mr Tang's application to disqualify Justice Lai, and so should not be asked to pay costs.

Mr Tang's daughter, Kelly, helped with file work. Amnesty International's representative, Hongkong-based New Zealand QC Gerard McCoy, was in court as an observer.

Mr Gray will complete his submissions today, following which lawyers for the PAP leaders will open their case.