Teen blogger Amos Yee was expected to attend the High Court on Thursday (Oct 8) for his appeal to be heard, but did not show up. His appeal was dismissed.
By Vanessa Paige Chelvan POSTED: 08 Oct 2015 10:20 UPDATED: 09 Oct 2015 14:13
SINGAPORE: Teen blogger Amos Yee had an appeal against his
prior conviction and jail sentence dismissed by the High Court on
Thursday (Oct 8).
Yee was expected to attend the hearing for his appeal to be heard, but did not show up. His lawyer, Mr Alfred Dodwell, who filed the notice of appeal on Jul 9, was present.
Justice Tay Yong Kwang decided to conduct the hearing without the 16-year-old, who has already finished serving his 4-week prison sentence. Following a hearing that lasted about two hours, the appeal was dismissed.
The teen was found guilty of two charges in May this year, after a two-day trial. Yee was convicted of one count of making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and one count of circulating obscene imagery.
Said Justice Tay: "Yee used offending words against the central figure of the Christian religion. There can be no doubt that be deliberately intended to arouse Singaporeans, Christians or not, into verbal combat with him."
Another of Yee’s lawyers, Mr Chong Jiahao, said that it “cannot be proven as fact” that Yee intended the comments to wound the religious feelings of Christians. “His purpose was to talk about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew”, Mr Chong said, adding that there was no “cogent evidence” otherwise produced in court.
The fact that it was Yee’s “dominant intention” to critique Mr Lee is irrelevant, said the prosecution, led by Second Solicitor-General Kwek Mean Luck. As long as Yee had a “deliberate intention”, it is enough to prove the charge, Mr Kwek said.
Yee’s “deliberate intention” was evident, said the prosecution, as Yee himself had admitted that he was “fully aware that his remarks were bound to promote ill-will amongst the Christian population”, said Mr Kwek.
Justice Tay noted that Yee had an “unhappy experience” in the Catholic Church. In one of his police statements, Yee said that he was “kicked out of the altar boys” for uttering a profanity at an altar boys meeting. There was therefore a background when he made the offending comments. “They were not innocent words uttered without real thought”, Justice Tay said.
"COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR OTHERS"
On the obscene imagery charge, Justice Tay said that the image Yee circulated “must be obscene by the standards of any right-thinking society”.
Yee’s third lawyer, Mr Ervin Tan argued that the image “does not depict any genitalia” and that the district judge had used the “wrong vantage point” in determining the image to be able to deprave and corrupt young minds.
The District Judge had put herself “in the shoes of right-thinking parents and teachers of our community” and concluded that they would not approve of their children or students viewing the image, said Mr Tan, adding his view that this test is wrong and has “no foundation in law”.
“A picture does not become obscene only when genitalia is explicitly shown”, Justice Tay said. “Depravity and corruption relate essentially to the mind”, said Justice Tay.
He then challenged Mr Tan: “Would a young man bring this picture to show to his girlfriend’s family and say ‘hey, look that this funny picture’? No. Why would he not do it? Something in you says, it’s not right.”
On the issue of the sentence, the High Court judge added: "Yee's attitude of complete disregard for others ... is hardly ever seen … he gave no respect to anyone." Justice Tay noted that the blogger had "openly defied directions of the court" and made sure his "bravado" in doing so was made known.
The defence argued that Yee was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech and provoke "critical discussion". Said Mr Dodwell: "Yes, Amos has been rude but were his actions a crime?"
In response, Justice Tay said: "This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like Yee is throwing stones at his neighbour's flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel”, Justice Tay said.
The judge also had sharp comments on the blogger's manner of speech.
"Yee used coarse, hard-hitting words to arouse emotions ... vulgar insults to deliberately provoke readers and draw them out," he said, adding that the 16-year-old should "wean himself off his preference for crude, rude language (and engage in) real debate", which can "flourish in an environment of goodwill, reasoning and civil language".
Justice Tay also noted that the period of 53 days that Yee had to spend in remand, which exceeds his four-week prison sentence, “was caused entirely by (Yee) alone”, pointing to Yee’s repeated flouting of bail conditions and initial refusal to cooperate with the court.
CASE HISTORY
Apart from the two charges Yee was convicted of, a third charge regarding statements Yee made in a YouTube video about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been withdrawn.
Yee uploaded the controversial video on Mar 27, just five days after Mr Lee’s passing, in which the teen likened Mr Lee to Jesus and criticised the founding Prime Minister.
He was arrested two days later, after several police reports were made against him, and charged in court on Mar 31. Yee was initially granted bail, set at S$20,000, with the condition that he would not post materials online while his case was before the courts.
He later flouted these conditions on Apr 14 by publishing a post asking the public for donations. His parents refused to post bail again, and Yee was instead bailed out by family counsellor Vincent Law.
However, Yee flouted his bail conditions a second time on Apr 29 following two blog posts that touched on the terms of his bail and accusing his father of being abusive, causing Mr Law to discharge himself as bailor.
Yee, on his way to the courthouse the next day, was struck by a 49 year old man who wanted to “teach him a lesson”. Neo Gim Huah was sentenced to three weeks’ jail.
After being remanded at the Institute of Mental Health for two weeks for psychiatric assessments, Dr Cai Yiming concluded that Yee does not suffer from any mental disorder.
After Yee’s sentencing on Jul 6, Mr Dodwell had said his client was “remorseful”, but added: “Let’s not run away with the idea that just because he’s remorseful and stuff, that is in relation to the social context. Whether this was a crime or not, still remains a question we want to determine in the High Court”.
Yee was expected to attend the hearing for his appeal to be heard, but did not show up. His lawyer, Mr Alfred Dodwell, who filed the notice of appeal on Jul 9, was present.
Justice Tay Yong Kwang decided to conduct the hearing without the 16-year-old, who has already finished serving his 4-week prison sentence. Following a hearing that lasted about two hours, the appeal was dismissed.
The teen was found guilty of two charges in May this year, after a two-day trial. Yee was convicted of one count of making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and one count of circulating obscene imagery.
Said Justice Tay: "Yee used offending words against the central figure of the Christian religion. There can be no doubt that be deliberately intended to arouse Singaporeans, Christians or not, into verbal combat with him."
Another of Yee’s lawyers, Mr Chong Jiahao, said that it “cannot be proven as fact” that Yee intended the comments to wound the religious feelings of Christians. “His purpose was to talk about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew”, Mr Chong said, adding that there was no “cogent evidence” otherwise produced in court.
The fact that it was Yee’s “dominant intention” to critique Mr Lee is irrelevant, said the prosecution, led by Second Solicitor-General Kwek Mean Luck. As long as Yee had a “deliberate intention”, it is enough to prove the charge, Mr Kwek said.
Yee’s “deliberate intention” was evident, said the prosecution, as Yee himself had admitted that he was “fully aware that his remarks were bound to promote ill-will amongst the Christian population”, said Mr Kwek.
Justice Tay noted that Yee had an “unhappy experience” in the Catholic Church. In one of his police statements, Yee said that he was “kicked out of the altar boys” for uttering a profanity at an altar boys meeting. There was therefore a background when he made the offending comments. “They were not innocent words uttered without real thought”, Justice Tay said.
"COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR OTHERS"
On the obscene imagery charge, Justice Tay said that the image Yee circulated “must be obscene by the standards of any right-thinking society”.
Yee’s third lawyer, Mr Ervin Tan argued that the image “does not depict any genitalia” and that the district judge had used the “wrong vantage point” in determining the image to be able to deprave and corrupt young minds.
The District Judge had put herself “in the shoes of right-thinking parents and teachers of our community” and concluded that they would not approve of their children or students viewing the image, said Mr Tan, adding his view that this test is wrong and has “no foundation in law”.
“A picture does not become obscene only when genitalia is explicitly shown”, Justice Tay said. “Depravity and corruption relate essentially to the mind”, said Justice Tay.
He then challenged Mr Tan: “Would a young man bring this picture to show to his girlfriend’s family and say ‘hey, look that this funny picture’? No. Why would he not do it? Something in you says, it’s not right.”
On the issue of the sentence, the High Court judge added: "Yee's attitude of complete disregard for others ... is hardly ever seen … he gave no respect to anyone." Justice Tay noted that the blogger had "openly defied directions of the court" and made sure his "bravado" in doing so was made known.
The defence argued that Yee was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech and provoke "critical discussion". Said Mr Dodwell: "Yes, Amos has been rude but were his actions a crime?"
In response, Justice Tay said: "This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like Yee is throwing stones at his neighbour's flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel”, Justice Tay said.
The judge also had sharp comments on the blogger's manner of speech.
"Yee used coarse, hard-hitting words to arouse emotions ... vulgar insults to deliberately provoke readers and draw them out," he said, adding that the 16-year-old should "wean himself off his preference for crude, rude language (and engage in) real debate", which can "flourish in an environment of goodwill, reasoning and civil language".
Justice Tay also noted that the period of 53 days that Yee had to spend in remand, which exceeds his four-week prison sentence, “was caused entirely by (Yee) alone”, pointing to Yee’s repeated flouting of bail conditions and initial refusal to cooperate with the court.
CASE HISTORY
Apart from the two charges Yee was convicted of, a third charge regarding statements Yee made in a YouTube video about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been withdrawn.
Yee uploaded the controversial video on Mar 27, just five days after Mr Lee’s passing, in which the teen likened Mr Lee to Jesus and criticised the founding Prime Minister.
He was arrested two days later, after several police reports were made against him, and charged in court on Mar 31. Yee was initially granted bail, set at S$20,000, with the condition that he would not post materials online while his case was before the courts.
He later flouted these conditions on Apr 14 by publishing a post asking the public for donations. His parents refused to post bail again, and Yee was instead bailed out by family counsellor Vincent Law.
However, Yee flouted his bail conditions a second time on Apr 29 following two blog posts that touched on the terms of his bail and accusing his father of being abusive, causing Mr Law to discharge himself as bailor.
Yee, on his way to the courthouse the next day, was struck by a 49 year old man who wanted to “teach him a lesson”. Neo Gim Huah was sentenced to three weeks’ jail.
After being remanded at the Institute of Mental Health for two weeks for psychiatric assessments, Dr Cai Yiming concluded that Yee does not suffer from any mental disorder.
After Yee’s sentencing on Jul 6, Mr Dodwell had said his client was “remorseful”, but added: “Let’s not run away with the idea that just because he’s remorseful and stuff, that is in relation to the social context. Whether this was a crime or not, still remains a question we want to determine in the High Court”.
- CNA/vc
Source: CNA http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/amos-yee-s-appeal-to/2176608.html
Image Source: Fabrications About The PAP https://www.facebook.com/FabricationsAboutThePAP/photos/a.245735922149090.70599.213440582045291/909738089082200/?type=3&theater
No comments:
Post a Comment