Underage prostitute case - shrewd, calculated defence move by Subhas Anandan

[Nice-Gook]

these men are victims of a scam.

There is nother appropriate word ,called entrapment.

What if it is.

That is what Subhas also gonna grill the girlie.

There was a precedent in a drug case.The evidences were very clear that a CNB officer deliberately baited a drug mule from Malaysia.The guy was hanged nevertheless.

But the public is not gonna go easy on this...and if the girlie is grilled than you can expect a lot of red faces from AG chambers.

 

[Papsmearer]

So what's Subhas going to ask the star witness if she takes the stand ?

(1) Confirm that she is underage at the time of offence ?
(2) That she did have sex with the Subhas' clients ?
(3) That she didn't make it known to Subhas' clients that she was underage at the time of offence ?

Those were questions of fact and uncontested by Subhas' clients. So what is the purpose of summoning the star witness ? Just to "break her resilience" ? And in order to achieve that, to shame her in public media ?

If Subhas wants to offer his jurisprudential point of view on how the law should apply, getting the star witness to take the stand is not necessary. Subhas is clutching at straws if his intention is to shame her.

I think u are confused here, better go back to sleep. Subhas is a defence lawyer, his clients hired him to defend them in court. Now why would they do that? They did that because they are claiming trial, and proclaiming innocence from the prosecution's charges that they had sex with an underage girl. Your so called "questions of facts" are indeed contested by his clients, otherwise, why would hire him and claim trial? Make sense or not?

 

[Clone]

It's really gonna be "fun and games".

 

[Papsmearer]

This is classic Subhas - publicity for him but nothing material for his client. He will never be considered for SC. The girl is no wallflower. She is a prostitute. She is not going to wilt. She testfying in court is given from day 1.

Scroo, I guarantee u the girl will crack. U already know the questions that Subhas will ask. I know what they are and a smart chap like u will know too. No matter how well the girl is coached by the prosecution, she cannot withstand it.

SUbhas will ask questions like
"in your time in Singapore working as a prostitute, how many customers did you have sex with?" 500? 1000? 2000? "If so, do you have a photographic memory or do you just happen to remember the faces of all these men accused here?"

 

[cunnilaubu]

Section 377D of the Penal Code states - "reasonable mistake as to the age of a person shall not be a defence" in relation to the offence. These guys are fucked! Suhbas is just playing to the audience and fattening his pockets at the same time. At lot of his clients can afford to pay, of course he would want to go to trial.

The point I am mooting is reasonableness.And also what a man on the street will do under similar circumstances.And the motive and intent of the client also matters.

however, if you are deceived or can prove that you exercise reasonable care to ensure its not underaged, then you have a case to fight.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

U notice how this soobus now seems to be apple polishing the pap govt n establishment nowadays...prolly still thinks he stands a chance of getting SC one day?!...

Btw think soobus also gg to try and attack the credibility of the accused police statements...gg to become quite a wayang trial...

This is classic Subhas - publicity for him but nothing material for his client. He will never be considered for SC. The girl is no wallflower. She is a prostitute. She is not going to wilt. She testfying in court is given from day 1.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Think u r misconceived on the reasonableness issue n onus being on the prostitute...liability here is prolly strict liability reason being public policy protection of minor...

Punters under an obligation to make damn sure tat the pros is 18 r abv...if in doubt must walk away...failing which land up like chaps called edward whistler goh who now has to change his name to ian ng??...

Saying tat there is no doubt tat there appears to be a conflict between non commercial consensual sex wif a 16 yr old being legal as opposed to commercial sex wif the same being classified as illegal...

The comparison is a bad one.Agreed,the seller has the right to withhold even if the man/woman is 70 yrs of age physically without an ID as a proof.

But in prostitution the onus is more on the person who sells the product.Just like the seller cannot sell you a defective or an expired product.That is the reasonableness I am talking about.

Yes,you can go one step further and demand proof.Like say you don't believe the beer is original and ask for certificate of origin.But suppose you don't or the supplier refuses and still you buy a fake beer than the transactions is not complete on that basis alone.It's not like you also at fault what since you have a choice not to buy ,sort of reasoning.

The point I am mooting is reasonableness.And also what a man on the street will do under similar circumstances.And the motive and intent of the client also matters.

You see my point?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

This con defence shall not work...like is said in my previous post this is prolly a strict liabilty offence...in fact if i am not mistaken in the earlier viet under age pros case the accused raised the pt tat the pros told him she was over 18...it made no difference to the court n he went to jail...

i tend to agree with Suhbas. firstly,calling chicken is not illegal in Singapore, except if its an underaged chicken.

now, if you know she is underaged and you still use her service, then you ought to get slapped.

however, if you are deceived or can prove that you exercise reasonable care to ensure its not underaged, then you have a case to fight.

its the same logic as you purchase something online, do you check if the seller have rightful ownership of the goods - becos buying stolen goods is illegal. but do you verify that seller is not selling stolen goods?

Likewise, who go geylang and check IC / passport of the chicken before using their service? Or is the responsibility on the OKT to ensure the chickens are of age?

the same logic shld be applied here. and if Subhas can prove that the chicken is out to con, then these men are victims of a scam.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Where is the entrapment in this case?....the transactions were only between the punter, pimp n prostitute...

There is nother appropriate word ,called entrapment.

What if it is.

That is what Subhas also gonna grill the girlie.

There was a precedent in a drug case.The evidences were very clear that a CNB officer deliberately baited a drug mule from Malaysia.The guy was hanged nevertheless.

But the public is not gonna go easy on this...and if the girlie is grilled than you can expect a lot of red faces from AG chambers.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Prolly more like a game of poker...but i wld be surprised if any of the defendants come off wif an acquittal r charges being dropped...this is too high profile a matter for the AGC to proffer charges only for it to blow up in its face down the road...

I think u are confused here, better go back to sleep. Subhas is a defence lawyer, his clients hired him to defend them in court. Now why would they do that? They did that because they are claiming trial, and proclaiming innocence from the prosecution's charges that they had sex with an underage girl. Your so called "questions of facts" are indeed contested by his clients, otherwise, why would hire him and claim trial? Make sense or not?

 

[Nice-Gook]

Section 377D of the Penal Code states - "reasonable mistake as to the age of a person shall not be a defence" in relation to the offence. .

There is section 377A relating to unnatural sex in our penal code.

Where is the section 377D?...pls cite me a site.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Where is the entrapment in this case?....the transactions were only between the punter, pimp n prostitute...

That's what I would fish for if I were Subhas.

Here is the clue.About 80 documented cases.You mean the pimp kept such a detailed record of his ex clients?....over a period of months too.

I am not saying there is an entrapment.But it cannot be ruled out.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

No need for the pros to get worked up...the punters used hotels...hotels keep records...saying tat i think one r two punters may hv used a condo...but even condo has security card records...

Scroo, I guarantee u the girl will crack. U already know the questions that Subhas will ask. I know what they are and a smart chap like u will know too. No matter how well the girl is coached by the prosecution, she cannot withstand it.

SUbhas will ask questions like
"in your time in Singapore working as a prostitute, how many customers did you have sex with?" 500? 1000? 2000? "If so, do you have a photographic memory or do you just happen to remember the faces of all these men accused here?"

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

there is no entrapment here as the authorities do not seem to be involved in any of the transctions...

As for records...looks like AGC gg to rely on hp data, hotel records, the pimp n the prostitute's diaries etc...

That's what I would fish for if I were Subhas.

Here is the clue.About 80 documented cases.You mean the pimp kept such a detailed record of his ex clients?....over a period of months too.

I am not saying there is an entrapment.But it cannot be ruled out.

 

[wikiphile]

There is nother appropriate word ,called entrapment.

What if it is.

That is what Subhas also gonna grill the girlie.

There was a precedent in a drug case.The evidences were very clear that a CNB officer deliberately baited a drug mule from Malaysia.The guy was hanged nevertheless.

But the public is not gonna go easy on this...and if the girlie is grilled than you can expect a lot of red faces from AG chambers.

Legal technicalities aside, we all know that high profile cases like this is determined in Singapore not by due process but by political will. End of the day, i will like to see who comes out of it fried and who comes out of it smelling like roses.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Think u r misconceived on the reasonableness issue n onus being on the prostitute...liability here is prolly strict liability reason being public policy protection of minor...

Punters under an obligation to make damn sure tat the pros is 18 r abv...if in doubt must walk away...failing which land up like chaps called edward whistler goh who now has to change his name to ian ng??...

Saying tat there is no doubt tat there appears to be a conflict between non commercial consensual sex wif a 16 yr old being legal as opposed to commercial sex wif the same being classified as illegal...

Corrections---the onus is on the seller.Pimp lah.Of course a further verification can be done by questioning the product--the girlie lah.

Now your stand is that the onus is heavy on the buyer.Nooooo ! Read here......even here .

A former US prosecutor with 25 yrs of experience say...Young people often strive to appear older than they really are. In many cases it is difficult to judge how old a young person is based solely on how he or she dresses and acts - which is especially treacherous given that a mistake about a person's age can lead to criminal charges, However, Illinois law does recognize that people may honestly be mistaken about a young person's age, and allows people to raise a defense of "reasonable mistake of age" to some sexual assault charges.


Okie,I hear you say those are Yankee laws but a poster had pointed even a British common law makes such provision for reasonable mistakes.Of course our knagaroo courts will take a stand on technicalities...even where a person hanged.But the world is gonna laugh at our judges and judiciary.

 

[Nice-Gook]

there is no entrapment here as the authorities do not seem to be involved in any of the transctions...

How are you so sure?

 

[Nice-Gook]

Legal technicalities aside, we all know that high profile cases like this is determined in Singapore not by due process but by political will. End of the day, i will like to see who comes out of it fried and who comes out of it smelling like roses.

Yup,that's my point.

 

[wikiphile]

Yup,that's my point.

For some a fine, for some time, for some fine and time. For the very few, they walk away with a discharge not amounting to a conviction. That's how egalitarian our justice system is.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Sorry u r wrong in this case becuz this is not yr normal commercial transaction...bottom line onus is on the punter...strict liability prolly applies...

Btw no pt quoting other jurisdictions laws unless it is applicable to local laws...

The world can laugh...but if the local law provides for strict liability then these punters r prolly gg to jail period regardless of who their defence lawyers n wat defences they run...

Corrections---the onus is on the seller.Pimp lah.Of course a further verification be done by questioning the product--the girlie lah.

Now your stand is the onus is heavy on the buyer.Nooooo ! Read here......even here .
A former US prosecutor with 25 yrs of experience say...Young people often strive to appear older than they really are. In many cases it is difficult to judge how old a young person is based solely on how he or she dresses and acts - which is especially treacherous given that a mistake about a person's age can lead to criminal charges, However, Illinois law does recognize that people may honestly be mistaken about a young person's age, and allows people to raise a defense of "reasonable mistake of age" to some sexual assault charges.


Okie,I hear you say those are Yankee laws but a poster had pointed even British common law makes provision for reasonable mistakes.Of course our knagaroo courts will take stand on technicalities...even where a person hanged.But the world is gonna laugh at our judges and judiciary.