Connect with us

Current Affairs

How fair is our criminal justice system?

Published

13 years ago

on

~by: Teo Soh Lung~
The recent decision in the motion filed by M Ravi, lawyer for Ramalingam Ravinthran complaining that in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, his client was unfairly charged with the crime that carries the mandatory death penalty is disturbing. Ramalingam was charged and sentenced to death for trafficking in cannabis while his accomplice was jailed for  20 years and given 24 strokes of the cane, a sentence which cannot be considered light especially if the claim that he has low IQ is true.
The judges of the Court of Appeal declined to elucidate reasons from the prosecutor as to why two men who had committed the same offence should face different charges, one attracting the mandatory death penalty and the other imprisonment and caning. This has led university professors to question why the prosecution was permitted to refuse to give its reasons when it chose to exercise its discretion unfavourably in relation to Ramalingam.  The prosecutor said in court that “the factors involved in how the prosecution chooses to charge an individual were not purely legal, but also included extra-legal and moral aspects, as individual circumstances had to be taken into account. For that reason, she argued, prosecutorial discretion should generally “not be reviewable””.[1]
The judges apparently took that submission to heart.  Have they forgotten the oft quoted aphorism of Lord Sankey in 1929 that “… justice should not only be done, but should appear to have been done.” ?[2]
The prosecutor, like the defence lawyer, is an officer of the court. When the prosecutor decides to charge a person with a drug offence that carries the  mandatory death penalty, he in fact becomes a judge because the law has deprived the judges of their discretion to impose any sentence other than the death sentence. Such being the case, it is surely not unreasonable for the appeal judges to ask for the reason why two persons who committed the same crime face different charges. If judges cannot even carry out this duty, to check if there is an element of bias on the part of the prosecution in handling the case, then I am afraid, it is the end of our criminal justice system. We can broadcast to the world that we have the best judicial system in handling civil cases in Asia, but we cannot tell the world that we have the best criminal justice system.
Before I retired from the bar, I had often heard my friends who practised criminal law, lament the fact that the law is steeply stacked against the accused person. With an inactive law society, a one party legislature and a super-efficient law minister for several decades, laws incorporating presumption of guilt against the accused person, minimum sentences, acceptance of evidence of accomplices without corroborative evidence, acceptance of confessions without corroborative evidence and mandatory death penalty had sailed through parliament without any  debate or serious debate. Even in motoring offences,  presumption of guilt prevails. The work of the public prosecutor has been lightened to an extent that even an inexperience prosecutor can secure a conviction without any effort. Heavy reliance on confessions to secure convictions or plea bargaiing have become quite the order of the day.  As a consequence, prosecutors become arrogant when dealing with defence lawyers.
I too had a taste of how arrogant prosecutors had become. In one case, my client was fortunately saved by the senior district judge and in the other, my client paid the price. The former dealt with an adult offender over 30 years of age. He came from a very good family but due to his mother’s terminal illness and his inability to cope with his depression, he shoplifted dvds from various shops all in one morning. He was caught and it was not difficult to know where he had stolen the articles.  He was a first time offender and had a history of mental illness. The prosecutor charged him with more than 4 offences, taking each object of theft as one charge.
I naturally plea bargained with the prosecutor but he was only willing to reduce the number of charges to 3 which meant that the judge in sentencing would have no choice but to give him consecutive sentences and not concurrent sentences. The senior district judge was surprised that the prosecutor had taken such a tough stand against a first time offender and advised that perhaps I should see the senior deputy prosecutor. I did but to no avail. I then informed the judge in mitigation that that was the prosecutor’s stand. I asked that my client be put on probation even though it was rare that an adult would receive probation. The wise and compassionate judge granted probation, much to the surprise of the prosecutor.
I admit that I did not practise criminal law to any significant degree but the sporadic cases I handled during my legal career was sufficient for me to notice the drastic changes that took place. Mandatory minimum sentences,  rapid expansion of offences carrying the mandatory death penalty and the presumption of guilt have eroded the power of judges. Judicial powers have swiftly and silently been passed on to the prosecutor even though our written constitution guarantees the separation of executive powers from judicial powers. The law allowing conviction based on uncorroborated confessions and uncorroborated evidence of accomplices leaves defence lawyers with miniscule chance of proving the innocence of their clients. All these changes have demoralised many lawyers. One senior lawyer actually gave up criminal law practice because it was “too uphill a task!”
The decision in Ramalingam’s case has opened the justice system to public scrutiny. Would the common man  be able to understand why two men who committed one offence receive two different sentences? Singapore may have the best judicial system in civil matters in Asia but how do we rank in terms of criminal justice?  With the public being more aware of human rights and the publicity given to judicial proceedings, the courts will certainly be subjected to more scrutiny than in the past. This public scrutiny can only be good for our judicial system.  As Lord Atkin said “Justice is not a cloistered virtue.”[3] Public scrutiny provide that necessary safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy. But for Ramalingam, public scrutiny of his case may bring him little consolation.

[1] Kirsten Han in “How much discretion should the Prosecution have?” The Onlinecitizen 9.11.2011
[2] Hobbs v Tinling and Company Limited [1929] 2 KB 1 at 48.
[3] Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322 at 335.

 


Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

1 day ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending