AGC winks at Alan Shandrake to run road

[aurvandil]

Many Singaporeans don't know how to practise it.

The following is from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Benjamin_Jeyaretnam

Later, however, Jeyaretnam was brought down by a series of charges and fines which he claimed were politically-motivated in a successful effort to disbar him and prevent him from taking part in future elections. Two months after his 1984 re-election, he was charged for allegedly mis-stating his party accounts.

In 1986, Senior District Judge Michael Khoo found him innocent of all charges but one, but the prosecution appealed and the Chief Justice ordered a retrial in a different district court, denying Jeyaretnam the opportunity to appeal to the Privy Council in Britain.[9] At the retrial, Jeyaretnam was declared guilty on all charges. The judge sentenced him to three months' imprisonment (later commuted to one month) and fined him S$5,000, sufficient to disqualify him from standing for election for a period of five years.

Judge Khoo was transferred from head of the subordinate court to the Attorney-General's chambers[9], a move widely viewed as a demotion[10]. When Jeyaretnam called for an enquiry into the transfer, alleging that the chief justice and the attorney general were "beholden" to Lee Kuan Yew, the allegation was dismissed as "scandalous".[10] and Jeyaretnam was expelled from parliament and disbarred.

Appeal to the Privy Council
Since the trial had been held in a district court, Jeyaretnam could not appeal the conviction, but he did appeal his disbarment to the Privy Council. The Council duly reversed the judgment, noting:

"Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgements, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession. Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore." [1]
The right of appeal to the Privy Council was severely restricted by a change in the law the following year.

After disqualification
Following the decision of the Privy Council, Jeyaretnam then wrote to the President to ask that the convictions be removed as a result of the Privy Council's decision. The President, on the advice of the cabinet, refused to remove the convictions and Jeyaretnam remained disqualified until 1991. Singapore judges also refused to reverse his convictions or reverse the fine, which prevented him from standing for office until 1997.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

For the record the judge judges according to what both sides present to him and not just the prosecution alone but the defense.

If the AGC was willing to be lenient to Alan, Alan and his defense would also have to play ball. The AGC cannot force Alan to do anything they want.

Both sides have to play ball, and the Judge agree's to the deal. BTw deals are struck every day b4 court between the AGC and defense, its called plea bargaining and part of the process of criminal justice.

The deal for Alan has to have both sides agreeing to it, it was not just an AGC deal alone.


Locke

 

[aurvandil]

The deal for Alan has to have both sides agreeing to it, it was not just an AGC deal alone.

Let's adjourn this till after the application is heard on Friday. A little bird told me that even if Alan leaves Singapore as expected, the matter is far from over.

 

[redlightmeansgo]

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

not forgetting NKF's peanuts man. The fucker got to go to the Middle East to start up a business, while his case was pending. And like the monk, it wasn't just once

So, in all fairness?

 

[Angelo]

To be fair to the judges, you people with differing views to laws should settle with your Parliament first, your lawmakers that you voted for. According to the laws passed by Parliament voted by the people, I have to the say the judges have done well. Many Singaporeans still have no concept of separation of powers and Parliamentary supremacy.

With such PAP dogs around + that locke dick, Singaporeans are doomed indeed.

 

[Angelo]

Dear Arun

For the record the judge judges according to what both sides present to him and not just the prosecution alone but the defense.

If the AGC was willing to be lenient to Alan, Alan and his defense would also have to play ball. The AGC cannot force Alan to do anything they want.

Both sides have to play ball, and the Judge agree's to the deal. BTw deals are struck every day b4 court between the AGC and defense, its called plea bargaining and part of the process of criminal justice.

The deal for Alan has to have both sides agreeing to it, it was not just an AGC deal alone.


Locke

Hi Ji Bia Kia. Same to you too.

You are such a fucking traitor. Your ancestors must be a han jian during war world 2.

 

[methink]

With such PAP dogs around + that locke dick, Singaporeans are doomed indeed.

Doomed is one thing... meanwhile we are greatest laughing stock to the world!

Pretending to be the world's best and most independent judiciary when we are not.

 

[aurvandil]

The following is an interesting paper by Francis Seow. It was written shortly after the World Economic Forum (WEF) released their findings on the Singapore judicary. Of note is that this paper is filed at the UNITED NATIONS.

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan002727.pdf

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

And what bloody relevance has those cases have to the deal making between the AGC and Alan in this case ?



Thanks

Locke

 

[Royalblood]

oh...as expected. This Shandrake guy dares to fuck around here in Singapore because he is fully aware that the shield of POME will deem him immune to any consequences :oIo:

Just another douchebag hiding under the skirt of his queen....

Now that an irresistable offer has been made to him, he is likely to capitulate and readily throw all his so-called firmly held "beliefs and principles" down in to the gutter

 

[aurvandil]

And what bloody relevance has those cases have to the deal making between the AGC and Alan in this case ?

When Alan wrote his book, his central theme was the Death Penalty. This was not however the part which got him into trouble.

The part which caused offence is the allegation that the justice system in Singapore are not fair and independent. The police, AGC and the Courts apply differernt standards depending on who you are.

Franics Seow's paper provides additional proof of instances of how the justice system in Singapore is not fair and independent.

It should be noted that the allegations were not proven to be true/untrue in this court case. That is to be decided in the criminal defamation case. Many speculate that they will not be proceeding with the criminal defamation as Alan could actually back up what he wrote.

AGC therefore went for the low lying fruit of contempt. By choosing this legal route, all AGC had to prove was Alan Shadrake made those offending statements. It did not matter whether they were true or false. As long as he made the statements, he was guilty was contempt and AGC could claim victory.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Don't waste your time exchanging with this locke guy. He has been proven time and time again to be a hugely dishonest person who will lie and hide and tell nothing but half-truths and entire untruths. The concept of morality has no bearing on his conscience.

He truly thinks that the judiciary is independent even when the PAPies control almost every facet of the judiciary.

Let's see if Alan actually wants to leave.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

You really should download and read the whole judgement before selectively and mischievously quoting half a cup.

The AGC had to prove contempt but the defense cited fair comment and fair criticism. Furthermore contempt whether "inherent tendency" or "real risk" is also subject to a defense of fair criticscm which has to be countered by AGC or evaluated by the Judge. That as the judge stated is quite interlinked and in his defense of fair criticsm Alan was found stark naked.

I cite you in no uncertain terms the case brought before the Canadian Supreme Court. In essence a Canadian company owing money in a commercial venture with a SG company brought a defense that its judgement in SG against it was politically biased due to one of the directors in an SG company being with the PAP as a grass roots leader. Luminaries quoted in the case included F Seow and yes the SDP and dear old Ravi was gleefully stating that if the case went the way of the Canadian company it was A SLAP IN the face of the Singapore System.


The case went the way of the Singapore Company. So all general allegations or issues have to be specifically linked. Look at it another way, Francis Seow cited cases which all had went to court and was defended and argued. In the case of Alan and his leave application it would not be challenged in court.



Locke

 

[aurvandil]

The AGC had to prove contempt but the defense cited fair comment and fair criticism. Furthermore contempt whether "inherent tendency" or "real risk" is also subject to a defense of fair criticscm which has to be countered by AGC or evaluated by the Judge. That as the judge stated is quite interlinked and in his defense of fair criticsm Alan was found stark naked.

This is mumbo jumbo.

The point remains that AGC has not proven that Alan used lies or untruths in his book. The judge found Alan guilty of contempt because in the judge's view, the conclusions Alan drew were "unfair" criticism of the Courts.

If Alan had used lies and untruths in his book, this would have been a straightforward criminal defamation case. They would have zeroed out the offending lies/untruths. After showing that these were lies/untruths, Alan would then have been made to retract the statements.

None of this happened as most of what is written in the book actually happened and was resonably accurate. Hence the only thing they could get him for was that his conclusions were "unfair" critcisim and therefore guilty of contempt.

 

[fukyuman]

Bring the Locke guy down like a bulldog. Singaporeans need people like you around.

This is mumbo jumbo.

The point remains that AGC has not proven that Alan used lies or untruths in his book. The judge found Alan guilty of contempt because in the judge's view, the conclusions Alan drew were "unfair" criticism of the Courts.

If Alan had used lies and untruths in his book, this would have been a straightforward criminal defamation case. They would have zeroed out the offending lies/untruths. After showing that these were lies/untruths, Alan would then have been made to retract the statements.

None of this happened as most of what is written in the book actually happened and was resonably accurate. Hence the only thing they could get him for was that his conclusions were "unfair" critcisim and therefore guilty of contempt.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Arun

Frankly you are grasping at straws. your point or argument is that as long as it was not criminal defamation , therefore Alan's argument must hold true and be factual.

The argument that Judge Loh made in his judgement was that certain facts were acknowledged to be true and beyond dispute but the interpretation of those facts was contempt of court because Alan could not provide enough facts in his defense of fair criticism.

Please do note that Alan's defense of fair criticism was his defense and his alone and he was UN fucking willing to take to the stand to defend his analysis and could not cite any sources beyond Subhas Annan's book.

If he could not substantively defend himself against a weaker charge with a lower burdern of proof what makes you think he could defend himself against a more serious charge of criminal defemation.

Furthurmore half the causes you cited have beenn dismissed by the Canadian Supreme Court no less


Locke