Connect with us

Court Cases

High Court dismisses M’sian death row prisoners’ application for stay of execution, protection order for former SPS officer

Published

5 years ago

on

The High Court on Thu (14 Feb) dismissed the application of two Malaysian death row prisoners to halt their execution and for the court to grant a mandatory protection order for a former Singapore Prison Services (SPS) officer who is willing to testify regarding their case.

Judge Valerie Thean, in setting aside the application, reasoned that media reports such as the statement made by Malaysian human rights group Lawyers For Liberty — which Datchinamurthy s/o Kataiah and Gobi s/o Avedian had relied upon in an affidavit — “are not reliable evidence” to be used in judicial proceedings.

Touching on the application for the mandatory order for the former SPS officer against civil and criminal liability the A-G and the Home Affairs Minister, the judge noted that Mr M Ravi had accepted “in his written submissions that the court cannot compel the Minister or the AG not to prefer charges”, but to instead compel them to consider using their discretion to grant immunity

“I note that the AG has exercised his discretion,” she said, adding that there is “no basis in law to impose a duty on the Minister” to consider granting immunity in such a way.

In a copy of the application, filed on 28 Jan and seen by TOC the next day, the two Malaysian detainees sought a stay of execution on the basis that there is “an imminent risk” of undergoing execution that is not “in accordance with law” should the recent allegations of brutality in judicial executions be true.

The mandatory protection order for the former SPS officer against criminal and civil liabilities, according to the document, was sought by the plaintiffs “to enable him to provide the necessary information” in support of their application.

Mr Datchinamurthy and Mr Gobi were convicted on drug trafficking charges separately, and were sentenced to death in 2015 and 2018 respectively.

M’sian death row prisoners’ application “a clear case of abuse of process”, allegations based on “hearsay”: A-G’s representatives

In calling for the dismissal of Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy’s application, Deputy Senior State Counsel Wong Woon Kwong argued that the mandatory order sought by the two death row prisoners for the former SPS officer is “fundamentally flawed”.

Citing Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority — in which it was decided “unequivocally” that the Court “cannot, by mandatory order, direct any public body or anybody else” to “perform their duty” in a certain manner — the A-G’s representatives argued that “the AG’s discretion should not be unduly fettered”.

The death row prisoners, they argued, at most had the right to seek a mandatory order for the A-G to consider granting immunity to the former SPS officer, not a mandatory order to compel the Court to instruct the A-G to grant such an order.

Touching on the A-G’s decision to not grant the former SPS officer immunity, the A-G’s representatives said: “The Applicants have not shown how the decision not to grant immunity would directly contravene their constitutional rights, or why immunity is necessary in this situation apart from the fact that the former SPS officer just wants it.”

The A-G’s representatives also argued that Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy had failed to exhaust all legal means available to them prior to seeking the mandatory protection order for the former SPS officer, as the two death row prisoners “had never approached the AG or the Minister to grant such immunity” to said officer.

“The AG’s decision not to grant immunity was only made after proceedings were commenced,” said the A-G’s representatives.

The A-G’s representatives also reiterated the Government’s stance that contrary to the allegations made in Mr Datchinamurthy’s affidavit in the application, all judicial executions are “conducted in the presence of, amongst others, the superintendent of the prison and a medical officer of the prison”.

They added that “a Coroner is required to conduct an inquiry within 24 hours after an execution to satisfy himself that the execution was carried out duly and properly”, adding that “any impropriety would have been seen or discovered by these parties”.

Calling the allegations “patently false and scandalous”, the A-G’s representatives argued that the allegations were based on “hearsay”, which is contrary to what an affidavit should contain — namely facts that the person giving the affidavit is able to prove based on his own knowledge.

The A-G’s representatives also added that Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy have not been able to refute the evidence given by SPS Deputy Assistant Commissioner See Hoe Kiat.

Mr See, claimed the A-G’s representatives, said “in no uncertain terms” that “the SPS has never carried out the training, or given, instructions” on the alleged procedure when the rope breaks.

The Deputy Assistant Commissioner also confirmed that “the rope used in judicial executions has never broken before”, which was not refuted by Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy, according to the A-G’s representatives.

Additionally, the A-G also claimed that the former SPS officer has yet to come forward to give his statement to the police, which “betrays the fact that his allegations (if in fact they were made) are false”, particularly when a person can be prosecuted for giving a false statement to the police.

The death row prisoners’ application, said the A-G’s representatives, was founded on “unsubstantiated allegations made by a foreign organisation which has aggressively and publicly campaigned against the death penalty in Singapore”, and thus should have never been filed.

“In doing so, it has made false and scandalous allegations against the Singapore Government and the Singapore Judiciary,” they argued.

The A-G’s representatives branded Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy’s application as “a clear case of an abuse of process”.

“The leave requirement was intended to deal precisely with applications like this, by filtering out groundless cases at an early stage to prevent waste of judicial time and to protect public bodies from unnecessary harassment,” they said.

Gobi s/o Avedian and Datchinamurthy s/o Kataiah to appeal against High Court decision: Lawyer M Ravi

Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy’s Singapore counsel M Ravi on Fri (14 Feb) said that his clients will be appealing against the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

Their appeals to the Court of Appeal is being scheduled to be heard in the week of 23rd Mar, and are being expedited, according to Mr M Ravi.

The lawyer said that the appeals focus on “the right of access to justice without any interference into lawyer’s representation”, which is “tantamount to the right of fair hearing being affected” as a result of “any threat to independent legal representation”.

“I had submitted in court that it stemmed from the Attorney General’s confirmation of the express reservation of the government’s rights against me personally.

“It was stated by the AGC that the government was keeping open a full range of possible options that it might avail itself in relation to my conduct in the case,” said Mr M Ravi, in reference to a statement made by Deputy Senior State Counsel Wong Woon Kwong at a pre-trial conference on 4 Feb.

“I had addressed the court that this is an implied threat and undermines the Law Society’s mission statement that calls for an independent, effective and competent legal profession which is fundamental to the upholding of the rule of law,” said Mr M Ravi.

Judge Thean on Fri in her judgement said that she “could not see any basis for concluding that Mr Ravi would have felt threatened in any way, or that it would have been reasonable for him to do so”, as Mr Wong “was merely communicating a position that should be familiar to all lawyers”.

Mr Wong’s statement, she added, “served as a salutary reminder to Mr Ravi that he should conduct himself appropriately and in accordance with the standards expected of all counsel as officers of the court”.

Mr M Ravi in a statement on Fri also revealed that Wong SC had applied to the court to “impose cost orders personally” against him. The hearing of this application is expected to be held in early March.

Families of Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy decided on bringing their case to the Court of Appeal “to know the honest, open, transparent answer for these death row inmates”: Pannir Selvam Pranthaman’s sister Angelia Pranthaman

The sister of another Malaysian death row prisoner in Singapore told TOC after the hearing on Thu that the families of Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy have decided to bring the case to the Court of Appeal as they “want to know the honest, open, transparent answer for these death row inmates”.

“This is dealing with life. This is important … This is not a joke. So we want to push it to the extent that we can to the Court of Appeal,” said Angelia Pranthaman, the younger sister of Pannir Selvam Pranthaman.

“We will not leave it [the case] here hanging – we will try our best until the end to get the justice that the death row inmates needed,” she stressed.

“This is dealing with life. This is important … This is not a joke. So we want to push it to the extent that we can to the Court of Appeal,” she said.

Mr Pannir, who was convicted of drug trafficking, was granted a stay of execution in May last year. However, a procedural application he made was dismissed by the High Court in Jul the same year.

Following that, the family of Mr Pannir — alongside the families of other Malaysian death row prisoners in Changi Prison, and activists from human rights organisations including Lawyers for Liberty and Amnesty International — submitted a memorandum to President Halimah Yacob in a bid to appeal for clemency for Mr Gobi and Mr Datchinamurthy.

The memorandum called upon Mdm Halimah and the Government of Singapore to reconsider the death penalty, particularly against drug mules “while the drug kingpins and traffickers are still at large”.

“We hope that you, Madam President, and the Government of Singapore would take a moment to reconsider the death penalty. It has proven not to be an effective deterrent and will not improve crime rates or trends in Singapore,” the memorandum read.

Touching on Mr M Ravi’s handling of his clients’ case, Ms Angelia said: “All this while, nobody came forward for these type of issues … He didn’t take a single cent from us families. He is voluntarily doing this.”

When asked on the families’ view regarding the allegations concerning the purported brutal execution method in Changi Prison, Ms Angelia said that the families believe that such executions might have taken place before, because “Singapore has never been transparent at all on what is happening [regarding judicial executions]”.

“Let’s say Singapore has previously mentioned that the number of executions is such and such … We might believe then that the rope-breaking never happened. But Singapore has never been transparent. So this leads to more doubt as to whether it has never happened,” she said.

Earlier on Wed (12 Feb), the High Court dismissed Mr Pannir’s challenge against the rejection of his clemency plea.

His lawyer Too Xing Ji told The Straits Times that Mr Pannir will be making an appeal against the High Court’s decision. Mr Pannir has also subsequently applied for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.

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

Court Cases

AGC announces no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng in Iswaran case

In a statement on 4 October, the Attorney-General’s Chambers announced no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng. This follows the sentencing of former Minister S. Iswaran, who pleaded guilty to five charges, including receiving gifts from Lum such as wine, whisky, and a Brompton T-Line bicycle.

Published

1 day ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announced on 4 October 2024 that no charges will be filed against businessman Lum Kok Seng  (林國城).

Mr Lum, the managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, had been named in March this year as one of two businessmen involved in a case concerning former transport minister S Iswaran.

The AGC had previously stated that it would take a decision regarding Mr Lum following the conclusion of Iswaran’s case.

On 24 September, Mr Iswaran pleaded guilty to a total of five charges, including receiving luxury items from Mr Lum between November 2021 and November 2022.

The items, allegedly given without any compensation, included several bottles of high-end whisky and wine, expensive golf equipment, and a premium bicycle.

The specific gifts from Mr Lum to Mr Iswaran were detailed as follows:

  • Four bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky valued at S$1,084.46
  • Fourteen bottles of whisky and wine worth S$3,255.75
  • A TaylorMade golf driver valued at S$749
  • Two more bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky, priced at S$542.23
  • A set of Honma Beres BE-08 Black AQ MX golf clubs worth S$4,420
  • A Brompton T Line bicycle worth S$7,907.50
  • Two bottles of M&H Elements Sherry Cask whisky worth S$198
  • A Scotty Cameron Phantom golf putter and two golf chippers valued at S$800

In total, these gifts amounted to approximately S$18,956.94.

These items were given during a period when Lum Chang Holdings was involved in a contract for construction work at Tanah Merah MRT station.

Attorney-General’s Chambers cites evidentiary risks in reducing Iswaran’s corruption charges

On 3 October, Iswaran has been sentenced to 12 months in jail after pleading guilty to four amended charges under Section 165 of Singapore’s Penal Code and one charge of obstructing the course of justice under Section 204A(a) of the Penal Code.

Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and Mr Lum, while holding public office.

These gifts, which included private flights and other benefits, were worth over S$400,000 in total.

The 35 charges against Iswaran were amended by the prosecution on 24 September from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their official duties.

The court also took into account Iswaran’s admission of obstructing the course of justice, for which he had repaid over S$5,000 to Singapore GP for a business-class flight he had taken at Ong’s expense.

The remaining 30 charges were taken into account during sentencing.

Iswaran had originally faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.

The charges were amended from two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to offences under Section 165.

This section, unlike Section 8 of the PCA, does not include a presumption of corruption, which would have placed the burden on the accused to prove the gifts were not given as inducements.

The AGC in an explanation cited substantial evidentiary risks in proving the original corruption charges, which involved  Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng.

The AGC noted that proving the original corruption charges under PCA would have been difficult due to the involvement of both Iswaran and Ong as primary parties.

Both would have had to implicate themselves to establish corrupt intent.

The AGC explained that “there are two primary parties to the transactions, and both would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.” This made securing a conviction for corruption highly uncertain.

In light of these risks, the AGC amended the charges to offenses under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a lower evidentiary threshold and a reduced maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

According to AGC, the amendment was made to ensure a fair and just outcome while considering public interest.

 

Continue Reading

Court Cases

Ong Beng Seng faces two charges linked with Iswaran’s offences, out on S$800k bail

Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng was charged on 4 October with abetting offences in relation to former Minister S Iswaran’s corruption case. Ong, the managing director of Hotel Properties Limited, faces charges under Sections 165 and 204A of Singapore’s Penal Code. His case has been adjourned to 15 November, and he is currently out on S$800,000 bail.

Published

2 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Property tycoon and hotelier Ong Beng Seng charged in court on Friday (4 October) with two offences linked to former Transport Minister S Iswaran’s case.

Mr Ong, who serves as Hotel Properties Limited (HPL)’s managing director, faces one count each under Sections 165 and 204A of Singapore’s Penal Code for abetment.

Section 165 pertains to a public servant obtaining valuables from individuals with whom they have an official relationship, while Section 204A deals with obstructing justice.

If found guilty under Section 165, offenders face up to two years in jail, a fine, or both. Abetting such offences carries the same penalties if the crime is committed due to the abetment.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to Iswaran.

The defence has requested a six-week adjournment for further instructions from Ong, a motion the prosecution, led by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong, did not oppose.

The case has been rescheduled for a pre-trial conference on 15 November at 9 am.

Ong is currently out on S$800,000 bail and is represented by Aaron Lee from Allen & Gledhill.

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, 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 was arrested by CPIB in July 2023

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.

In addition to Ong, construction tycoon Lum Kok Seng was also linked to the additional charges filed against Iswaran in March this year.

Iswaran, who became transport minister in 2021, admitted to accepting valuable items worth approximately S$19,000 from Lum, including a Brompton bicycle, luxury wines, and golf equipment.

However, no charges have been publicly announced against Lum.

Controversies surrounding Ong

This is not the first time Ong has found himself embroiled in controversy.

The 1990s saw questions over luxury condominium units sold by his company to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son. The units, part of the Nassim Jade and Scotts 28 condominiums, were allegedly sold at special discounts.

This raised eyebrows due to Ong’s familial links with the Lees – his uncle, Lee Suan Yew, was a director at HPL. Although then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong cleared the Lees of any wrongdoing in 1996, the incident has remained a notable mark on Ong’s business record.

Furthermore, an investigative report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project in 2018 revealed allegations of corruption involving Ong in the leasing of two islands in the Maldives.

The report suggested that HPL had sidestepped Maldivian laws requiring public tender for island leases, instead conducting direct negotiations with Maldivian officials.

It was also alleged that a US$5 million payment made for the lease of Fohtheyo island had been siphoned off through a company associated with friends of the then Maldivian Vice President Ahmed Adeeb. Ong did not respond to these allegations.

Ong, who is the founder of the Singapore-based organization Hotel Properties and a shareholder in many businesses, has a net worth of S$1.7 billion.

Together with his wife Christina, they ranked No. 25 on Forbes’ Singapore’s 50 Richest list, which was published in August 2022.

 

Continue Reading

Trending