AGC winks at Alan Shandrake to run road

[aurvandil]

AGC has winked at Alan Shadrake that they are willing to let him run road. They did this by reminding him that he can apply to leave SG while his appeal his pending.

This comes on the back of news that behind the scenes, the UK govt is planning an action that would embarass Singapore greatly. The threat is so strong that the PAP decided to "let him go" rather than play this to the bitter end.

Alan Shandrake has apparently decided to call it quits as well. He has applied to leave Sg and it is likely that he will not return.

In providing Alan Shandrake with this "offer", AGC and our Courts unwittingly provide empirical evidence that justice in SG is indeed not fair. If you were involved in a case where you faced jail time, do you think AGC will allow you to leave SG?

BREAKING NEWS: Shadrake applies to High Court to leave Singapore

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/11...hat-shadrake-be-allowed-to-leave-the-country/

The Attorney General’s Office today made an extraordinary application for the court to remind Mr Alan Shadrake of his right to seek leave of court if he wants to exit the jurisdiction.

The implication is that if the defense makes the application to be allowed to leave the jurisdiction, the prosecution will not contest it.

Alan Shadrake was sentenced to six weeks jail and $20,000 fine last Tuesday after having been found guilty of scandalizing the Singapore judiciary with his book Once A Jolly Hangman. He appealed against the sentence on 18th Nov 2010.

“It is unprecedented for the prosecution to apply to the order of court to remind the defense that he can make this application,” said Shadrake’s lawyer M Ravi. “Any defense counsel is obviously aware that this route is available to a defendant that is not living in Singapore but the Attorney General in most circumstances would contest it.”

When contacted, Shadrake said he would consider the offer.

“I’m looking forward to spending Christmas with my family in London but I haven’t made up my mind,” he said.

LATEST UPDATE: Tuesday, 23 November, 18.30 hrs:

Alan Shadrake applies to the High Court to leave Singapore. In a letter to the Court Registrar, Shadrake’s lawyer, M Ravi said:

“We refer .. to the Order made in court on 22 November 2010 by His Honour, Justice Quentin Loh. Pursuant to the said Order, our client wishes to leave the jurisdiction as soon as possible.”

The Registrar has fixed Friday, 26 November, 9.30am for the hearing before the judge in chambers.

In his reply to the Registrar, Mr Ravi asks for the proceedings to be heard in open court instead.

“We are surprised that you have fixed the application to be heard in chambers rather than in open court to which we take objection to [sic]. Please reconsider your position and kindly fix the matter to be heard in open court on 26 November 2010 at 9.30am.”

TOC will provide more updates as and when we have them.

 

[denzuko1]

I am really interested to see Alan go and come back to Singapore to continue with the appeal.

So far what the prosecuters did were to throw baseless accusation at Alan without proves to back it up and the judge simple throw in a "guilty" verdict. It really makes Singapore judicial a joke.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Denzuko

Alan is a joke. In so much as he is against the death penalty and against certain laws, in his book he refers consistently to a flawed judiciary. A first year law student would have told him that any definition of judiciary includes the courts. He may have had a case in a more narrow sense abt the unfairness of prosecutorial or AGC discretion and how it turned out in certain cases but in he sensationalized and over did a case with few reported sources.

1. That Joker blithely stated in his defense that when he referred to Judiciary in his book he was only referring to the AGC and prosecutorial discretion after the book was printed.


2. That joker did not take to the stand to defend his book.


3. That joker stated or alleged many sources in his book including Counter Narcotics Officials in Singapore and Australia.

4. That joker given a chance to defend his allegations in a court only presented in his defense Subas Annan's book and his research into court transcripts.



Locke

 

[aurvandil]

Hi Locke

Do you think the Singapore courts are fair and that everyone is treated EQUALLY regardless of who they are?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

Well lets just say for discussion's sake that I do thought I do not believe them perfect. but then again do u have a specific case in mind



Locke

 

[aurvandil]

Dear Arun

Well lets just say for discussion's sake that I do thought I do not believe them perfect. but then again do u have a specific case in mind



Locke

To avoid having to dig out old cases, let's just use this one as an example.3 questions:

1) How often and why does AGC remind people they are prosecuting that they can apply to go home while waiting for their appeal?

2) In other cases where there is already a guilty verdit and jail time involved, how many times has AGC not contested applications for the person to leave Singapore?

3) How often have judges approved the applications for persons with guilty verditcs with jail time to leave Singapore?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

Grief, so are u suggesting the problems lies with the courts or with the AGC or with Alan's Lawyer ? Has it even occurred that a behind the scenes deal was struck between AGC and Alan's lawyer to close the case ?




Locke

 

[Char_Azn]

In providing Alan Shandrake with this "offer", AGC and our Courts unwittingly provide empirical evidence that justice in SG is indeed not fair. If you were involved in a case where you faced jail time, do you think AGC will allow you to leave SG?

IIRC Ming Yi(the monk with the horse) was allowed to go eat wind while his sentence was being appeal

 

[aurvandil]

Grief, so are u suggesting the problems lies with the courts or with the AGC or with Alan's Lawyer ? Has it even occurred that a behind the scenes deal was struck between AGC and Alan's lawyer to close the case ?

I am aware of the deal which was struck. It had nothing to do with the lawyers but instead involved the British FO applying diplomatic pressure in the form of a course of action that would have greatly embarassed Singapore.

Alan's lawyer Ravi had nothing to do with brokering this deal. In fact, you could almost say he is trying to scuttle it by having the application for leave heard in open court rather than in chambers.

The irony of the situation is that the central issue in Alan's book is that the Courts AND AGC in Sg are not fair. By brokering a deal to close this case, BOTH the Courts AND AGC proved what Alan was alleging all along.

 

[aurvandil]

IIRC Ming Yi(the monk with the horse) was allowed to go eat wind while his sentence was being appeal

If you are just an ordinary Singaporean, do you think you will be allowed to go eat wind?

 

[Char_Azn]

To avoid having to dig out old cases, let's just use this one as an example.3 questions:

1) How often and why does AGC remind people they are prosecuting that they can apply to go home while waiting for their appeal?

2) In other cases where there is already a guilty verdit and jail time involved, how many times has AGC not contested applications for the person to leave Singapore?

3) How often have judges approved the applications for persons with guilty verditcs with jail time to leave Singapore?

Yes I was right. Ming Yi was allowed to leave SG, TWICE, while his sentence was on appeal

Ming Yi allowed to leave

CONVICTED Buddhist monk Ming Yi was on Wednesday granted permission to leave Singapore - the second time he has been allowed to do so since his sentencing in November last year.

The monk, who turns 48 on Thursday, is to travel to several countries for a month to deal with temple matters.

His bail of $450,000 was extended by District Judge Toh Yung Cheong, who gave him leave of a month from Thursday.

Ming Yi, who is appealing against his conviction on several charges including fraud, and a 10-month jail term, will head for Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong and China, said his lawyer Hamidul Haq.

Neither his bailor Sim Beng Chye nor the prosecution objected to his applying for leave.

Ming Yi, the former chairman and chief executive of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre, was convicted last October of four charges of fraud, falsifying documents, misappropriating funds and giving false information to the Commissioner of Charities. The trial lasted more than 20 days.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_482958.html

 

[Char_Azn]

If you are just an ordinary Singaporean, do you think you will be allowed to go eat wind?

I can't afford the 450K bail money but the fact remains that if this joker is allowed to leave the country, he won't be the exception. In fact the Judge would need to find an excuse not to let him go since there were cases where they were able to leave the country

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

You seem to have absolutely no clue as to the court system. The judges decide but because its an adversorial justice system, the prosecution can chose not to object to any application to leave SINGAPORE or in this case suggest that he can APPLY.

Either the way the implication is that the remit will not be contested to or objected to by the AGC or Prosecution and courts tend to look in any jurisdiction favorably when applications are uncontested by the Prosecution.

You are falling into the same crap as Alan, courts are the courts but the AGC is the AGC



Locke

 

[aurvandil]

You seem to have absolutely no clue as to the court system. The judges decide but because its an adversorial justice system, the prosecution can chose not to object to any application to leave SINGAPORE or in this case suggest that he can APPLY.

Either the way the implication is that the remit will not be contested to or objected to by the AGC or Prosecution and courts tend to look in any jurisdiction favorably when applications are uncontested by the Prosecution.

So you are saying it is normal practice for AGC to suggest to people that they are prosecuting that they can leave Singapore after they have been handed a guilty verdict with jail time?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

Your post said the AGC and the Courts were not fair so are you now changing your case ?
So yes the AGC has hinted strongly that Alan should fuck off and not come back but the choice still remains for ALan to come back and serve his term if he has the balls



Locke

 

[aurvandil]

Your post said the AGC and the Courts were not fair so are you now changing your case ?

Not changing my case at all. I stated up front that AGC and the courts are not "fair" because they treat different people differently.

If you are an ordinary Singaporean, AGC would most certianly not wink at you to "fuck off". AGC would instead vigorously oppose your application to leave Singapore.

Ditto for the Courts who would be less than sympathetic to grant your application.

This proves the central point in Alan's book that "justice" in Singapore depends on who you are.

Incidentally, are you aware of just why the previous AGC Walter Woon left under such peculiar circumstances? Rumour has it that this was because he was against this type of justice based on "status".

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

The courts decide based on what the prosecution brings forth and the defense put forward by the defense. That is the basis for any criminal justice system. The courts will rule favorably with Alan's leave application because the AGC will not contest it for reasons only known to them. Put the same set of circumstances anywhere an an uncontested application is usually looked upon favorably by the courts.

The ball is of course or balls is with Alan to c whether he comes back.

The courts will judge in a contested application but the comparison is MOOT at this point because Alan's application is not contested.

How are the courts not fair ? Or are you completely incapable of grasping how a legal process works


Locke

 

[aurvandil]

The courts decide based on what the prosecution brings forth and the defense put forward by the defense. That is the basis for any criminal justice system. The courts will rule favorably with Alan's leave application because the AGC will not contest it for reasons only known to them. Put the same set of circumstances anywhere an an uncontested application is usually looked upon favorably by the courts.

Need to understand your position more. Are you therefore saying

1) The Courts in Singapore are clean, scrupulously fair and treat everyone equally.

2) It is AGC who is dirty and unfair.

 

[Ilovelamb]

Dear Arun


How are the courts not fair ?


Locke

'Because aurvandil aka Goh Meng Seng said so

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

There are specific cases and outcomes I disagree with vis sa vis the courts. However does this mean I would say the Courts are unfair or have not treated anyone equally ? And even if I find one case unfair does it mean that the court system is itself unfair ?

Do I find the AGC dirty well what exactly do u mean by dirty ? Corrupt ? Nope. Unfair perhaps.


Locke