Saturday, 06 September 2008
Mr M Ravi was brought to the High Court on Friday morning to argue a Criminal Motion he had filed against the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) where he has been remanded since 18 Aug 08.
Ms Chee Siok Chin had tried to visit Mr Ravi but was told by the hospital that Mr Ravi was not allowed visitors, not even family members, as he is in remand. This is obviously not true because Sheila, one of Mr Ravi's sisters, had in fact visited him.
Sheila spoke to the hospital staff about Ms Chee's visit because Mr Ravi had requested to see Ms Chee. But this was turned down. It is understood, however, that one of Mr Ravi's clients was allowed to visit him on several occasions.
Another area of inconsistency is Mr Ravi's treatment. While the hospital says that the lawyer would not be given medication, Mr Ravi's family members said that he had been given medication. In fact, the prosecutor revealed in court Mr Ravi was on medication.
This sort of conflicting information raises serious questions about how Mr Ravi is being treated.
Mr Ravi argued before High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang that he should not be further remanded at IMH. He pointed out that, since a diagnosis had already been made, then he should be free to seek treatment from other psychiatrists rather than be held at the IMH. Custodial rights, the lawyer argued, cannot and should not be returned to those against whom he is taking out the criminal motion.
Judge Tay dismissed the application. He did not give reasons for his decision.
Seelan: Here are 3 relevant links sent to me by a concerned member of the public who believes that Ravi does not appear consistent with being mentally ill when he makes such good arguments in court. Is the state purposefully extending Ravi's detention to destroy his immense work in human rights and law practice?
Lawyer M Ravi fails in attempt to cut short his remand at IMH
Lawyer's remand extended
Accord is sought by U.S. and Soviet on mental wards