Pre Trial Conference

[busdriver111]

Bro,

Then it's slightly different than what busdriver's version.

You meant representation basically "plea bargain" to mitigate the charges....

You are saying the AG will either go trial (if the representation did raise a reasonable doubt) and let the judge decide if the accused should be acquited based on "significant" and "material" facts raised by accused.

Or they will accept plea from the accused. That is to accept "proceed 3 and TIC 3".

No way to get a "DATA" or "DNAQ" without going through a trial.

In short, die die will have to go trial in order to be acquited.

Also, die die have to face few days trial and pay all the legal fees.

Must prepare $$$....

Am I correct based on your posting above? Thanks for the clarification.

Go and speak to your brother's lawyer.

It is possible to get DNAQ or DATA after reps, without trial. Because if it is after trial, it can NEVER be DATA or DNAQ. It would have to either be a conviction or an acquittal. The terms DATA and DNAQ are specifically used to signify that there was no trial.

Another point I missed out in my earlier message. If prosecution has voluntarily made an offer to proceed 3 and TIC 3, usually this means that they are very sure that investigations are complete. I think it is very very unlikely for them to add more charges to the present 6, regardless of whether reps are made.

 

[busdriver111]

Minor correction, the explanation is vice versa. Its likely to be DNAQ.

You are absolutely correct. My inadvertent error.

 

[sharin75]

...there's the possibility of no plea taken. That's not the same as pleaing not guilty...

Bro,

What's the real differerent between the 2? Both leads to trial.

Am I right?

 

[busdriver111]

PP in name only via fiat, similar to crown, regina, rex etc. AG has no records only statistics except for those files referred to AGC. Where DPP from AGC is present in court, the file has gone to them for prosecution. The bulk of the cases do not.

Those cases that are serious or complicated and where accused claims trial, it turned over to DPP.

The accusatory and investigation functions do not follow similar distinction as
normal institutions of state such as legislative, executive and judiciary etc. We however do not go to the French extreme where the magistrate supervises Police investigation. The AG and DPP has every right to supervise investigation and they have done so in the past and continue to do so especially protracted investigations. If you retrieve Investigation Papers from the Pulay Senang and the Sunny Ang cases, you will see Francis Seow's has literarily supervised the investigation.

Glen Knight did the same for the MCA Chairman over the stock exchange manipulation.

The reason they began introducing legally qualified DPP to cover the role of Police Prosecutors from CID were over professional competence and to raise the bar.

1. The part on AG's not having records on cases : What I meant is that AG will have some kind of record of every case, though not necessarily the IP itself. It would not be necessary if the police prosecution branch is doing the prosecution. Anyway, I am going to take your word for it, so I hope what you stated is not just from conjecture.

2. Pulau Senang and Sunny Ang cases : I always thought Francis Seow was solicitor-general, who does not perform the PP's function? How was he involved in these cases?

 

[busdriver111]

Bro, by the way thanks for stepping in and helping our forummer in time of need. Your patience in explaining the details are appreciated. From time to time we have good chaps that come in to provide guidance and you are certainly one.

I know for a fact, many lawyers don't bother to explain to the extent that you have and they were paid for their services.

For all you know, I may just be bullshitting big time here. I am after all just a blue collared bus driver. Singapore - Hatyai - Singapore.

Sharin, better go talk to your brother's lawyer, the real professional. As for the advice you get in this forum, do not trust in it blindly. Seek real advice in the real world. Your brother's liberty may be hanging on it.

 

[busdriver111]

Bro,

What's the real differerent between the 2? Both leads to trial.

Am I right?

Yes both lead to trial. But no plea can lead to adverse inference taken by the court against the accused.

 

[Ramseth]

Pulau Senang and Sunny Ang cases : I always thought Francis Seow was solicitor-general, who does not perform the PP's function? How was he involved in these cases?

Francis was DPP during those cases. He was promoted to Solicitor-Gen. after.

 

[busdriver111]

Francis was DPP during those cases. He was promoted to Solicitor-Gen. after.

Oh I see. Thanks. These cases must be from damn long ago, even before I started driving bus.

 

[Ramseth]

Bro,

What's the real differerent between the 2? Both leads to trial.

Am I right?

Both lead to trial but there's a difference to be hoped for.

- Plead not guilty means go to trial as charged.

- No plea taken means trying to get the prosecutor to amend (i.e. lower) charge or trying to contest technicalities like investigation and interrogation procedures, validity of evidence etc.

Yes both lead to trial. But no plea can lead to adverse inference taken by the court against the accused.

You're right, no plea taken is already admitting that some kind of offence has been, or at least might have been committed. It's a question of what and how it was dealt with. It has a different effect from straight forward pleading guilty and mitigate or pleading not guilty and fight.

 

[sharin75]

For all you know, I may just be bullshitting big time here. I am after all just a blue collared bus driver. Singapore - Hatyai - Singapore.

Sharin, better go talk to your brother's lawyer, the real professional. As for the advice you get in this forum, do not trust in it blindly. Seek real advice in the real world. Your brother's liberty may be hanging on it.

Bro,

U are rite. Just as bro Scroobal mentioned, what u shared are much more in-depth and I don't expect the lawyer to spend so much time explaining how the different approach may attract different possible outcome..

With your sharing, I'm better off negotiating proper approach with the lawyer early next week. SMS to him was ignored and no respond, called office talk briefly only as he was required to attend court hearings.

I think no lawyers would discuss the various strategies. But he will recommend the best approach based on circumstances. He's the trained expert and he will rely on my bro information and try make a good representations to get him off the charges.

Going to a trial may not be the best option for him as we are not financially well off. Nonetheless, we don't qualify any legal aid due to many family members...household income busted.

You must be the most knowledgable "bus driver" in Singapore knowing such in depth in Spore legal system.

Got any lobang? Ask my bro join you...earn income help himself. Got free time teach him some law... Haha

 

[scroobal]

If the AG needs to require to pull a file or seek details of a case, they will seek it from the Police or the courts if the case has not been referred to AG in the past. Stuff this serious, I don't put it down unless I am sure.

1. The part on AG's not having records on cases : What I meant is that AG will have some kind of record of every case, though not necessarily the IP itself. It would not be necessary if the police prosecution branch is doing the prosecution. Anyway, I am going to take your word for it, so I hope what you stated is not just from conjecture.

2. Pulau Senang and Sunny Ang cases : I always thought Francis Seow was solicitor-general, who does not perform the PP's function? How was he involved in these cases?

 

[scroobal]

I think it best that I clarify things about the representation and it is also best to clarify with your lawyer

I will break down 2(b) as representation takes 2 main forms not just casting reasonable doubt
2(b) (i) make representations and raise your reasonable doubt - this has to be material and significant and you looking for DNAQ or DATA . I have already explained what significant and material is. The DPP may also ask certain aspects of the investigation to be re-done. This may prove a red flag to a bull and the IO may dig deeper.
2(b)(ii) make representation - seek mercy with the intention to seek DATA/DNAQ or reduce 3+3 to 1+5 or 2+4. Sometimes they might reduce the charge to a lesser charge. In essence, your brother recognises the error of his ways and he has been on right track all the while until this and there are good grounds to give a chance.

If your brother says he did not do any thing wrong. Categorise very clearly how he ended up facing the allegations and why he could not have done it.

2. There are three options now :
(a) accept prosecution's offer and PG to 3 charges; OR
(b) make representations and raise your reasonable doubt; OR
(c) claim trial and face 6 charges.

 

[sharin75]

I think it best that I clarify things about the representation and it is also best to clarify with your lawyer

I will break down 2(b) as representation takes 2 main forms not just casting reasonable doubt
2(b) (i) make representations and raise your reasonable doubt
2(b)(ii) make representation - seek mercy with the intention to seek DATA/DNAQ or reduce 3+3 to 1+5 or 2+4.

Bro,

If we try 2(b) (i) but get rejected, do you think can try 2(b) (ii) by sending all the good testimonials, ask MP write letters bla bla bla...

Someone told me today that representations rarely works once a DPP takes on a case, unless it is really material and significant. Most times, they will go ahead with the preferred charges.

Is it true?

 

[Ramseth]

I think you have to have an objective in mind first. Do you want to go for full acquittal, reduced charge or mitigated sentence? Once you know what you want, then you can decide on the course effectively toward your benefit. It doesn't mean you'll sure achieve it, but it means less chance of straying off course and losing it.

How to set that objective? Look at the charge and evidence against you. How likely and how far can you rebut the evidence? Your lawyer can advise you on this and make reccomendation for further course of action, but you have to make the decision.

 

[busdriver111]

Bro,

If we try 2(b) (i) but get rejected, do you think can try 2(b) (ii) by sending all the good testimonials, ask MP write letters bla bla bla...

Someone told me today that representations rarely works once a DPP takes on a case, unless it is really material and significant. Most times, they will go ahead with the preferred charges.

Is it true?

1. Try 2(b) (i) and (ii) at the same time, in the same representation.

2. Reps don't work once DPP takes on? Well all depends what is raised in the reps and what quality of work your lawyer produces, right? Like I said earlier, there is a wide range out there in the market. Hehehehehehe.

3. Also, based on the material given, the lawyer should be able to tell you the likelihood of having the reps acceded to.

 

[sharin75]

I think you have to have an objective in mind first. Do you want to go for full acquittal, reduced charge or mitigated sentence? Once you know what you want, then you can decide on the course effectively toward your benefit. It doesn't mean you'll sure achieve it, but it means less chance of straying off course and losing it.

How to set that objective? Look at the charge and evidence against you. How likely and how far can you rebut the evidence? Your lawyer can advise you on this and make reccomendation for further course of action, but you have to make the decision.

Bro Ramseth,

I am kan chiong for my bro, cos I might have to pay for him and want explore all possibilities. It's my bro case. He's not in here for some reason and I respect his decision. Anyway...

I think it would be fair to assume all accused wish to have full acquittal, so there's where we are going for my bro's case. We are not aware of what evidence in the prosecution file, and the IO didn't reveal too much. So, not really sure how to rebut any evidence.

But after going through with my bro, I felt strongly he had a case to raise significant doubts and they are material in his charges. I will find out what the lawyer feels next week.

1. Try 2(b) (i) and (ii) at the same time, in the same representation.

2. Reps don't work once DPP takes on? Well all depends what is raised in the reps and what quality of work your lawyer produces, right? Like I said earlier, there is a wide range out there in the market. Hehehehehehe.

3. Also, based on the material given, the lawyer should be able to tell you the likelihood of having the reps acceded to.

Bro Busdriver,

I guess we just have to trust our defence lawyer have the knowledge and skills to do what you recommended. Luckily, he's not one of the usual "plead guilty" lawyers out in the market. HAHA...HENG AH Finally can have a small laugh.

I did ask this the last time....

1. If really representation is successful, my bro will walk a free man...any court fees to pay? Then I assume only need to pay my bro lawyer's fees correct?

2a. If representation fails, then DPP proceeds 3-3 and my bro pleads guilty. If court decides imprisonment then, jail terms are 2-consecutive and 1 concurrent. What about the fines? Max 3 charges added up?

2b. If representation fails, but DPP lower to 2-4 or 1-5, and my bro pleads guilty. If court decides imprisonment then, jail terms should be concurrent. What about the fines? Max 2 charges added up?

2c. If representation fails, and goes trial, DPP proceeds all 6 charges. If court decides imprisonment then, how to calculate possible jail terms? What about the fines? Depends on the mitigating factors? We are just worried the court wants to make this a "deterrent" case in the future...:(

LAN LAN

 

[Ramseth]

I think it would be fair to assume all accused wish to have full acquittal, so there's where we are going for my bro's case. We are not aware of what evidence in the prosecution file, and the IO didn't reveal too much. So, not really sure how to rebut any evidence.

But after going through with my bro, I felt strongly he had a case to raise significant doubts and they are material in his charges. I will find out what the lawyer feels next week.

There're reasons why some defendants don't go for full aquittal, e.g. overwhelming evidence when contesting would lead to harsher sentencing, cost and time involved getting unaffordable, avoiding prison in exchange for fine, a combination of many factors etc.

The prosecutor must hand over all evidence the defence lawyer, whereas the defence lawyer doesn't have to tell the prosecutor what defences or tricks up he sleeves before the trial. Unless of course, the defence lawyer feels telling in advance gains advantage for the client, e.g. soften the prosecution ground for possibility of reduced charge.

In a criminal trial, it's not about who's actually guilty or not; it's about who's legally guilty or not. Casting reasonable doubt on evidence may even get a murderer indeed off the noose.

 

[busdriver111]

Sharin,

Q1 - No court fees to pay, only have to pay the lawyer.

Q2a - Any 2 sentences will be consecutive. The 3rd will be concurrent. Which ones consecutive is up to the judge.

Q2b - If Prosecution proceeds 2-4, mosy likely 2 sentences concurrent. But correctly, this is subject to the same transaction rule. The law on sentencing requires that for concurrent terms of imprisonment, the two offences must be part of the same transaction. Eg. if A is charged for commiting housebreaking in Toa Payoh on Monday, and robbery in Jurong on Wednesday, the two sentences should be consecutive. They are separate transactions. However, in practice, this rule is not followed very strictly.

As for fines, just have to total up for all the charges proceeded with. There is no consecutive or concurrent for fines. There is also no concurrent for jail term in default of fine (cannot pay fine, go to jail). Have to total up. There is also no remission (early release for good behaviour)

Q2c - If convicted after trial, the manner of calculating the jail sentences (concurrent or consecutive) and the fines, will be the same as the method as if he pleaded guilty.

The difference will be that the sentences imposed if the defendant pleads guilty will be less than if he is found guilty after a trial. Eg. if a person pleads guilty to habouring an illegal immigrant, he will be given the statutory minimum of 6 months imprisonment (assuming he does not have previous convictions). If he is found guilty after a trial, he'll get 9 to 12 months. The reason is that pleading guilty and saving the court's time is a mitigating factor.

 

[busdriver111]

The prosecutor must hand over all evidence the defence lawyer, whereas the defence lawyer doesn't have to tell the prosecutor what defences or tricks up he sleeves before the trial. Unless of course, the defence lawyer feels telling in advance gains advantage for the client, e.g. soften the prosecution ground for possibility of reduced charge.

I think it is the other way round.

The prosecution usually does not furnish defence with the accused person's long statement. If they do show it to the defence, it is when they are sure that the lawyer will surely lose faith and tell his client to PG after seeing the long statement.

Although now there is a pilot project on to implement some kind of discovery process for criminal proceedings. That is not the law yet.

On the other hand, any potential defence would usually be revealed in the representations. Further, when defence asks for trial dates, the first thing Mr Rahim Jalil asks is "what's your client's defence?" Now that Mr Chia has taken over in Court 17, I am sure the same question will be asked.

 

[Ramseth]

The prosecution usually does not furnish defence with the accused person's long statement. If they do show it to the defence, it is when they are sure that the lawyer will surely lose faith and tell his client to PG after seeing the long statement.

I don't think so and my experience suggests it isn't so. The prosecutor can't simply tell the defence lawyer his client is charged under Sec. # Cap. # and you go and sort it out with your client, see you in court, pal. One of the primary function of the lawyer is to apply for all evidence discovered in order to advise and represent his client's in his best interest. This is something that defendants who defend themselves don't know how to go about applying, and the prosecutor will just act blur. He doesn't have to give it to you if you don't know how to ask, but he has to if you know how to ask or if you have a lawyer.

Prosecutors aren't allowed surprises in court (that's where inadmissibility of evidence and mistrials come in), unless it's proven acceptably to the judge that new evidence introduced is too recent a discovery.