S'pore rebuts Littlemore - details

LAW MINISTRY: Mr Stuart Littlemore's report of Oct 1 and his letter to the Straits Times dated Oct 6 are false, misleading and hypocritical.

Littlemore: The Singapore leadership uses libel actions to stifle free speech and political debate and to remove political opponents.

Minlaw: Mr Littlemore pretends to champion the cause against defamation actions. He is a hypocrite.

Singaporeans expect politicians to clear their names in court when defamed. Those who are afraid to do so soon lose the confidence and respect of the electorate. Opposition politicians know that. That is why Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Jeyaretnam have sued when defamed.

Littlemore: Singapore courts have aided the PAP leadership in silencing its opponents by awarding unconscionably high damages to PAP plaintiffs.

Minlaw: By comparing awards in favour of the PAP plaintiffs with those in favour of others, Mr Littlemore implies that the courts have awarded the PAP plaintiffs excessive damages to help the PAP silence its opponents. This is false and is a contempt of court.

Mr Littlemore sets out the defamatory allegations against the non-PAP plaintiffs. But he conveniently fails to cite the vile and scurrillous allegations against PAP politicians. They include favouritism, nepotism, corruption, dishonourable conduct and abuse of power.

The prime minister, senior minister and deputy prime minister of Singapore hold the highest offices in the land. Mr Littlemore disingenuously compares them to importers.

Littlemore: That an opposition election candidate (a retired man) had to sell his home to pay damages of S$200,000 to the PAP plaintiffs.

Minlaw: The SM and DPM Lee Hsien Loong claimed damages against one Mr Wee Han Kim for alleging that they were parties to nepotism and corruption, a very serious attack. Mr Littlemore falsely claimed that Mr Wee was a retiree.

At the time, Mr Wee was a member of the Singapore Bar. As a lawyer, he knew he had no defence and agreed to pay damages.

Littlemore: Mr Jeyaretnam had difficulty obtaining a QC to represent him as he had to show that the defamation case was sufficiently difficult and complex to warrant a QC while the PM was allowed one unopposed.

Minlaw: The Legal Profession Act requires an applicant for a QC to show that the case is sufficiently difficult and complex. Mr Jeyaretnam's application to admit Mr George Carman was contested because the plaintiffs did not consider the case to be difficult or complex.

Justice Chao Hick Tin disagreed and granted Mr Jeyaretnam's application. Since the court had found that the case was sufficiently difficult and complex, the PM applied for a QC. Mr Jeyaretnam, having successfully argued that the case was sufficiently complex, could not argue that the PM was not entitled to a QC.

Littlemore: Justice Chao who was listed to hear the action was replaced and informed of the government's displeasure because he had allowed Mr Jeyaretnam's application for a QC.

Minlaw: Mr Littlemore's statement is false. Justice Chao was not listed to try the action. The government never expressed any displeasure about Justice Chao's decision to admit a QC. If it disagreed, it would have appealed against his decision. The executive has no say about which judge is to try a case. It is a matter for the chief justice.

Littlemore: Counsel for the remaining plaintiffs remained in court for the duration of the hearing to increase costs the defendant would have to pay if all plaintiffs obtained a verdict. This was unnecessary since, by electing to be bound by PM's case on meaning, their cases would involve only the issue of damages if PM won a verdict.

Minlaw: Counsel were not only entitled but also obliged to follow the case to decide whether they should advise their clients to agree to be bound by the judge's ruling on meaning in the PM's case. The decision could only sensibly be made after all the evidence and submissions were in.

The plaintiff's agreement to be bound by the decision on meaning was made to save time and costs. If the plaintiffs wanted to increase costs, they would have refused to agree to be bound.

The plaintiffs still have to prove that Mr Jeyaretnam's words referred to them.

Littlemore: ST's report of settlement talks is contempt of court.

Minlaw: Mr Littlemore said ST's report that Mr Jeyaretnam's lawyers initiated settlement talks amounts to a contempt of court.

But it was BBC's South-east Asia correspondent, Mr Simon Ingram, who first reported that the initiative for a settlement had come from the plaintiffs. Mr Ingram's suggestion was made in the course of the trial and was completely untrue.

The PM had no choice but to contradict it. If Mr Littlemore is right, then the BBC is in contempt of court. Yet he avoids mentioning the BBC.

Littlemore: The judge who initially refused to allow Mr Carman's questions changed tack when the PM's QC did not object, implying that the judge took his cue from the PM's QC.

Minlaw: Mr Littlemore has again got his facts wrong. Mr Carman had put to the PM that the opposition in Singapore is being stifled by oppressive policies and a "climate of fear". Mr Shields did object to this cross-examination as being irrelevant and improper.

The judge agreed and directed Mr Carman to avoid making comments. When Mr Carman pressed on, the judge stopped him.

Littlemore: All relevant precedents pointed to a verdict for Mr Jeyaretnam and the judge should have delivered his verdict in favour of the defendant immediately.

Minlaw: Mr Littlemore does not cite one precedent for his bald statement that precedents point to a verdict for the defendant. He ignores the PM's evidence that advice was taken from four London QCs before the action was commenced.

Mr Littlemore is dishonest. He knows that judgments are commonly reserved, like the defamation case Ainsworth Nominees Pty Ltd v Hanrahan (1982), in which he appeared.

He suggests that judgment was reserved for an ulterior purpose. This is absurd. The Notes of Evidence ran to 768 pages. Twenty-seven legal authorities were submitted to the judge. Submissions took a day and a half. This case was far more complex than his case, Ainsworth, where judgment was reserved.

Littlemore: The judge improperly and on his own accord "did the plaintiff's work for him" by formulating a lesser (unpleaded) meaning.

Minlaw: Mr Littlemore has either not understood the PM's case or is dishonest. The PM's case was based on both natural and ordinary meaning and innuendo. Mr Littlemore falsely claims that the PM had not pleaded innuendo. Innuendo was pleaded. Mr Littlemore was in court when Mr Shields repeatedly stressed that the PM's case was also based on innuendo.

Littlemore: The judge agreed with the defendant that the words are not defamatory.

Minlaw: This is false. The judge clearly held that the words spoken by Mr Jeyaretnam were defamatory. This was the basis of the award of damages.

Littlemore: The judge erred in law in permitting the PM to succeed based on a lesser meaning as this was not pleaded.

Minlaw: The Singapore court of appeal has held that a plaintiff is entitled in law to plead the highest defamatory meaning. The court can accept that meaning or give a lesser meaning to the words complained of.

Mr Carman never disputed that the judge was entitled to find a lesser meaning but accepted that lesser meanings need not be pleaded. He had every opportunity to address those meanings but did not do so. The suggestion that Mr Jeyaretnam was denied natural justice is absurd.

Littlemore: The judge showed the PM undue preference in awarding aggravated damages although no evidence as to his injury to reputation was given.

Minlaw: Offensive and irrelevant cross-examination is an established ground for awarding aggravated damages. It is basic law that if libel is proved, injury to reputation is presumed and no evidence is required. Any law student knows that.