Forfeiture of $ for the bailor should be an anticipated outcome.

[bic_cherry]

Bail should be forfeited unless proven otherwise when bailed absconds.
I.e. it should be the onus of the bailor to argue why his $$$ (bale sum) should be returned: otherwise, many people will willingly volunteer (irresponsibly/ recklessly) to be Bailor's without thought that the bale sum $ would be forfeited should the bailed abscond.

Given to the fact that the $$$ is bale to ensure the defendant's presence in court, the $$$ represents the integrity of the dependent: if the dependent absconds, then the $ is forfeited: the Bailor's efforts in general notwithstanding. It is thus not the prosecutors duty to prove irresponsibility of the bailor but the opposite.

Frequently, abscondment of the dependent (bailee) reflects the poor judgement of the bailor to volunteer the bail $sum: forfeiture of $ for the bailor should thus be an expected if not anticipated outcome.

Bailor to have S$40,000 forfeited after court overturns ruling | TODAYonline

PS: maybe if the bailor could prove that the bailee died (?car accident), was hospitalised (very sick/ on MC) or was kidnapped against will: only such extreme reasons would suffice for the bailee to be absent from answering the charge(s).

SATURDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2014.
singapore
Bailor to have S$40,000 forfeited after court overturns ruling
BY
AMANDA LEE
[email protected]
PUBLISHED: 4:03 AM, NOVEMBER 8, 2014
SINGAPORE — The High Court has overturned a district court’s decision to remit a S$50,000 bail to a 37-year-old man after his bailee absconded.

The prosecution, who appealed against the decision yesterday, said the district court had erred in law by not finding that Mr Melvin Sim had lacked due diligence in his duties as a surety.

Judicial Commissioner (JC) See Kee Oon, who agreed with the prosecution, ordered S$40,000 of the bail sum to be forfeited to the state.

On Nov 30 last year, Mr Sim stood as surety for Mohammed Farhan Baharudin, who was facing drug-related charges. As the bailor, Mr Sim’s duties included ensuring Farhan’s punctual attendance at all court dates and times.

The court heard that Mr Sim and Farhan did not attend two pre-trial conferences held in March and April this year. For both hearings, the court was informed that Farhan was uncontactable. During the April hearing, the district court issued a warrant of arrest against Farhan with no bail.

A hearing was also fixed on May 20 for Mr Sim to show cause why the bail should not be forfeited.

At the May hearing, Mr Sim, who was unrepresented, told the court that after the Central Narcotics Bureau was unable to contact Farhan in mid-December, he made contact with the accused through the latter’s father.

The last time Mr Sim managed to contact Farhan was via telephone in late January. However, Mr Sim made a police report only on Feb 4.

In mid-February, Mr Sim tried to discharge himself from standing as surety for Farhan, but failed.

Mr Sim told the court yesterday that he paid only S$37, 000 of the bail amount, while the other S$13,000 came from Farhan’s father.

Deputy public prosecutor Sanjiv Vaswani argued that Mr Sim had failed his duties as a bailor — he did not get Farhan to attend court in April, failed to keep in daily communication with him and did not lodge a police report within 24 hours of losing contact with Farhan.

“The appellant submits that these breaches show a blatant disregard by the respondent of his duties as a bailor,” said Mr Sanjiv.

He noted that the district judge found that Mr Sim had done his reasonable best in trying to get Farhan to attend court. However, Mr Sanjiv said yesterday: “Any efforts as claimed by the respondent, in fact, took place after the accused had absconded from bail. Such efforts ... do not justify the decision made by the learned district judge to remit the entire bail amount to the respondent.”

In his ruling, JC See, who noted a previous judgment on bail forfeiture, said it must be understood that standing bail is a most serious matter and this must be brought home to all bailors and potential bailors.

In response to media queries, the State Courts said as of last year, there were 122 accused people who jumped bail, from 99 people in 2012.

Copyright ©2012 MediaCorp Press Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Bailor to have S$40,000 forfeited after court overturns ruling | TODAYonline