[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A court ruled that lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam did not intend to attack the judiciary with his death penalty poem, which had previously been found guilty of Contempt of court.
By virtue of this decision, Mr. Thuraisingam was fined instead of being sent to the Three Judges Court – the highest disciplinary body to deal with a lawyer's misconduct.
In August 2017, the High Court fined the lawyer $ 6,000, after pleading guilty to publishing a 22-line poem on his Facebook page in May of the same year, which was declared outrageous. to the court. The display has increased hours before the hanging of his client for drug trafficking.
The Attorney General complained that in his poem, Mr. Thuraisingam alleged that "millions of men", including judges, had become "blind" to cruel and unjust laws and aimed more at Acquisition of financial wealth and material goods.
In addition to the sentence imposed on him by the High Court, Mr. Thuraisingam was disciplined for failing to comply with standards of conduct that suited his role.
However, in its report released last week, the court found that his misconduct was not serious enough to bring an action before a higher disciplinary body, where he could have been stricken from the role of lawyers and lawyers.
Instead, he was reprimanded and fined $ 18,000 in April of this year.
The court, appointed by the Chief Justice, consisted of lead counsel Cavinder Bull and attorney Teo Weng Kie.
In its report, the court noted that the reference to judges in Mr. Thuraisingam's poem "would more likely be an error on the part of an author than a deliberate attack on judicial integrity", because the meaning of the poem would not have changed significantly if the reference to the judges had been changed. removed.
The most compelling point of mitigation for Mr. Thuraisingam was his efforts to remedy and apologize for his disregard, the report said.
He immediately deleted the Facebook message after receiving a letter from the Attorney General informing him of his transgressions. He then issued a public apology for his poem.
The court also concluded that Mr. Thuraisingam's remorse for his actions was sincere and noted that he was unlikely to reoffend.
[ad_2]
Source link
