Ravi pleads guilty, blames hypomanic episode

In Uncategorized on 14/12/2015 at 1:46 pm

But tribunal is not moved and cuts him no slack. Case referred to panel of three High Court judges who can really terkan him (or as the cybernuts, Ravi’s groupies, and ang moh tua kees say, “Fix him”: fine or censure him.

Last week’s M Ravi’s attempt to escape more severe punishment in a disciplinary case failed. He had appeared before a Law Society tribunal on four charges and pleaded guilty to the four charges of misconduct.

One charge was hooliganish behaviour at the Law Society premises, a video clip of which was posted online. Another charge was making nasty, vicious statements against the Law Society president and his family members in a Facebook post. The last two other charges were about false allegations made by Ravi about two lawyers in February.

Psychiatrist Munidasa Winslow, his doctor, testified that Mr Ravi suffered from bipolar disorder and a hypomanic episode from mid-January to late February.

His lawyer, Mr EugeneThuraisingam said that he had shown remorse, apologised in April to the people affected and was prepared to pay $10,000 as a penalty to the Society or one of its pro bono schemes. He was also taking steps to prevent a relapse. (Is he taking his medicine? In his autobiography, he boasted that he refused to take his pills preferring meditation Now I meditate a lot but there’s a limit to what meditation can do.)

Dr Tommy Tan, a psychiatrist called by the Law Society, said Mr Ravi’s mental condition did not serve to excuse but to mitigate the acts complained of against him.

M. Ravi will be dealt with by a court of three High Court judges. The tribunal recommended the move, saying that it had no power to fine or censure Ravi as he was being dealt with as a non-practising lawyer. It said that in the case of a non-practising lawyer, its task is limited to finding if the charges are sufficiently serious to have it referred to the three judges.

Ravi was charged as a non-practising lawyer as he was suspended in February because his fitness to practise was impaired by his bipolar disorder.

ST reported:

The tribunal, in its report released yesterday, said a prima facie case had been established against Mr Ravi since he had “pleaded guilty to the four charges and his mental condition as per the evidence of Dr (Tommy) Tan (a psychiatrist) does not exculpate him for his various acts of misconduct but are mitigating factors only”.

Eugene Thuraisingam argued that the case did not justify being referred to the Court of Three Judges as the offences were due to Mr Ravi’s mental condition. [Go bananas is licence to play havouc and get away with it isit? Hmm, lessons for Amos?]

But lawyers … for the Law Society countered that the case was sufficiently serious to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, pointing to the scurrilous statements he had made.

The tribunal held that it had no power to order any sanction or to accept Mr Ravi’s offer to pay $10,000, and that its role was to report to the Chief Justice if the case was serious enough for disciplinary action.

These ang mohs should sit down and shut up. Even his doctor and M Ravi himself said he was ill.

Finally, his claim of getting his practicing cert back should make this bunch of Canadian lawyers*** sit down and shut up. A Canadian NGO has asked LawSoc “to discontinue disciplinary action against internationally known human rights lawyer M. Ravi and to take all steps necessary to ensure the reissuance of his practising certificate”.

TOC summarises their arguments

The arrogance of the Ang Mohs is astounding. As the LawSoc pointed out the Canadians want due process to be ignored. They think we still under ang moh rule isit?

***A bunch of M’sian lawyers also made a similar call.

Related post

Why Ravi went bananas: blame Roy, Hui Hui and other young hooligans

  1. this psycho bloke can now join toc website as one of its many editors.

  2. I admire his guts to fight for what he believes is right, sometimes bro bono. He can’t be 100% crazy all the time — most of his cases he took up based on his convictions and not loonyism. The rest of the other 99.999999999999999% lawyers in S’pore would rather show the middle finger to the plaintiffs / defendants, coz there ain’t no big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ or is damaging to their reputation / career in S’pore.

    I mean as a lawyer in SG, it’s so much easier to shake leg (& other things) in air-con office doing rubbish work that pays easy money like conveyancing, notarisations, wills, deeds, contracts, open-&-shut torts, etc.

Leave a Reply to "ft" editors Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: