Human rights lawyer M Ravi apologises for premature releases of court documents

[UPDATE on Wednesday, 30 April at 4:45pm: Adding details of M Ravi's apology]

Human rights lawyer M Ravi issued a statement apologising for distributing court documents prematurely, following a complaint filed by the Attorney-General's Chambers last month to the Law Society on the matter.

In a press release sent to members of local and international media on Wednesday afternoon, Ravi said he "now regret(s)" the statements he made to the media, as well as his actions in releasing documents relating to cases involving his clients.

He said it was "never (his) intention" to help his clients gain unfair advantage in their cases, nor was it his aim to interfere in the conduct of fair proceedings by prejudicing the cases in question in the minds of the public -- points which the AGC previously noted in their complaint.

"I accept (the AGC's) position and... I do sincerely apologise to the persons affected by my releasing the Court documents and statements," he wrote.

Yahoo Singapore has contacted the Law Society and the AGC for a response to the matter.

Last month, the AGC filed a complaint to the Law Society against Ravi over the latter’s release of court documents relating to cases he was handling to local and international media.

Representatives for Ravi said he received a letter dated 12 March informing him of this. A document dated 24 January was attached to it, detailing four instances where Ravi allegedly sent court documents regarding cases he was personally handling to local and international media.

These, said the AG, had not been endorsed or given to the parties involved or submitted formally in Court, and involved cases like the death of prison inmate Dinesh Raman and former Robinsons employee Lawrence Bernard Wee.

Apart from that, the AG also accused Ravi of making statements regarding his cases to the media that were “calculated to interfere with the fair proceeding” of the cases that were before the court.

While noting that the documents were released to the media on the same day that they were filed in Court, they were sent out before being issued to the relevant responding parties in the case, the AG wrote.

“Media reports and statements by members of the public could have been made pertaining to these Court documents at a time when the (responding party) was not even aware of the commencement of these proceedings,” he added.

Signing off on behalf of the AG on the complaint was chief prosecutor Tai Wei Shyong, who wrote, “These court documents were sent to the media to gain an unfair advantage in the cases, and/or to interfere in the conduct of fair proceedings by prejudicing the Respondent’s case in the minds of members of the public… this is conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court.”

Following this, the Law Society will ask Singapore’s Chief Justice to appoint a disciplinary tribunal to look into the case.

Responding to the complaint back then, Ravi’s representatives said he would “vigorously defend his position both locally and internationally”.

When asked, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Chambers confirmed the complaint that was filed, noting that the AG filed the complaint “only after a sustained period of such conduct… had been observed”.

“Mr Ravi will have an opportunity to present his case to the Disciplinary Tribunal in due course,” the spokesperson added.