A precise definition of sub judice for legal certainty

The report, “Church group hears ‘multiple viewpoints’ on S377A” (Feb 19), mentioned that the group’s chair, Mr Lawrence Khong, had posted on its Facebook page about meeting the Law and Foreign Affairs Minister.

Mr Khong wrote that in response to its query, the Minister stated that the Government’s position on Section 377A of the Penal Code “is as set out by the Prime Minister in Parliament in 2007”, that is, the current stance is not to repeal S377A.

The Facebook post was merely a description of what was said during the meeting. However, one should also consider that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) recently issued a statement on the sub judice rule.

Given the ongoing constitutional challenges to S377A, could this post then be deemed as sub judice?

In the exercise of judicial independence under a system of Parliamentary sovereignty, the courts do consider legislative intent, and a representative of a religious community has now publicly reiterated the Government’s preference for the retention of S377A.

I do not doubt Mr Khong’s account of the meeting. Nonetheless, as mentioned in the letters “A better definition required for sub judice material” (Feb 6) and “Broad definition of sub judice may impair legality” (Feb 8), a precise definition of sub judice is lacking.

This makes it difficult to assess what kind of public comments would be deemed as such. So, I support the call on the AGC to clarify what kind of statements would or would not be deemed to be “calculated to affect the minds of the courts hearing the case”.