Participating in Unlawful Assembly Defense Motion
The main aim of this Act is to regulate various assemblies and processions in places that are deemed to be “public.” The main aim of the Act is the preservation of public order and ensuring the safety of people as it pertains maintenance of public order.
Assembly is defined as the means of any gathering or meeting of people of one the purposes outlined under the Act. The purposes include the intention of demonstrating to either support or oppose other peoples- including the government views or actions. Other Purposes for such actions could include intentions of publicizing various causes or campaigns or marking important events. Such demonstrations can be comprised of one individual or more than one person for any of these purposes.
Whereas it is clear from this definition that the peaceful demonstration by the trio amount to Unlawful assembly done the purpose for their assembly does not fit in the definition the purposes outlined in section 16 of the Public Order Act, 2009. For instance, under the first purpose, the assembly should be aimed at demonstrating support or opposing some views or actions. The trio stood by the roadside wearing T-shirts with messages that did not convey any message related to their intended mission.
The message “Down with Wall Street’, and ‘Greed is Good … For the Rich,’ can have multiple interpretations, and one cannot relate the information been driven by the demonstrators. Further, the three did not give any speech and thus did not have any chance to explain what could have their intentions to the public. For the demonstration to be regarded as “unlawful assembly,” it must be clear that their intention is to commit a certain purpose to under the Act was accomplished or attempted.
Their demonstration further did not intend nor manage to publicize any particular cause or campaign; neither was it in commemoration of a given event unless this demonstration of either of the three major functions that have been committed there is no basis for unlawful assembly allegation.
The defendant is charged [in the count] with engaging in an unconstitutional assembly. The prosecution must show that:1 to establish that the defendant is guilty of this offense. The defendant knowingly took part in an illegal meeting. The defendant was conscious that when (he/she) participated, the meeting was unlawful. One voluntarily commits an act when he or she knowingly or intentionally does so. An unlawful assembly occurs when two or more people come together (to commit a crime [or] to do a lawful act in a violent manner).[When two or more people come together to do a lawful act in a violent manner, the assembly is not unlawful if there is no actual violence or if there is a clear and present danger.
The Commissioner may delegate to any designated officer the exercise of all or any of the powers conferred on him or any of the duties imposed by this Act (with the exception of the power of delegation conferred by this subsection), subject to the conditions or limitations laid down in this Act or as directed by the Commissioner; and any reference to the Commissioner in this Act shall include a reference to the Commissioner.
Wherein the designated officer exercises any powers or functions under the delegation referred to in subsection; he shall comply with any instruction from the Commissioner.
The conviction that fined the three for the alleged offense is contained in article 16 of the Act, and it states that the person of illegally organizing an assembly should be fined $ 5,000. In this scenario, the three colleagues denoted equal participants in the demonstration, and there is no conscience evidence of Arnold has been the main organizer of the demonstration. The main role of this Act seeks to protect public order from been distracted by unlicensed demonstrators. The intention of the trio was not to distract and indeed did no distract public order. This is because they did not involve the general public as they only caught the attention of a few passers-by. Thus, under this defense, the defendants can go back to court to seek a reversal of the judgment.
Under this Act, unless the context demands otherwise — “act of terrorism” implies any of the following: (a) a terrorist bombing offense within the scope of the Terrorism (Deletion of Bombings) Act (Chapter 324A); (b) a terrorist act within the scope of the Terrorism (Deletion of Financing) Act (Chapter 325); “assembly” implies a conference or meeting (whether or not it involves any lecturer); there is therefore
“Prohibited area” means any area defined in an order made pursuant to section 12; “public assembly” means an assembly to be held or held in a public place, or to which members of the general public are invited, compelled or allowed to attend. The trio, in this case, simply stood by the roadside and thus cannot be regarded as a public place.
Court contempt defenses
Section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 2007 Rev. Ed.) grants the High Court and the Court of Appeal the power to punish for contempt of court. This clause is a constitutional acknowledgment of the inherent authority of the superior courts in ensuring the proper administration of justice. The Law also empowers the Lower Courts to prosecute acts of contempt. Although Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore safeguards the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression, the High Court held that the offense of scandalizing the court falls within the category of derogations from the right of free speech expressly provided for in Article 14(2).
There exists a correct balance between the right to freedom of speech and the need to protect court dignity and reputation. In order to establish the offense, the complainant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Act or words that have been accused of appearing to interfere with the administration of justice. The intrinsic propensity test was found to be supported by Singapore’s limited geographical size, the fact that there is no jury system, and that judges have to determine both legal and factual matters, and the test makes evidence of damage irrelevant to the administration of justice.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.