Casualties at the Bar?
By The Independent - May 27, 2016 8 1817
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
By: Teo Soh Lung
The Media Statement of 25 May 2016 from the AGC echoes the unwarranted opinion of the five Court of Appeal judges who said that the three lawyers, Mr Gino Hardial Singh, Ms Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Alfred Dodwell had abused court processes and thus guilty of “legal opportunism”.
As an observer of the proceedings throughout the two days of urgent hearings to save the life of Kho Jabing, I was aghast at the conduct of those who sat in judgement. They were obviously in a hurry and unreasonably suspected the lawyers of abusing the court processes, as if lawyers have nothing better to do than spend sleepless days and nights trying to save a condemned man so near to death. The judges appeared to have shut their minds off from further arguments and considered every issue raised as having been raised before. They refused to listen to counsel. Indeed at the beginning of the hearing of the appeal from the decision of Khannan JC, Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong was hostile and shut off Mr Alfred Dodwell who submitted that the same five Judge Court of Appeal should not, in fairness to his client sit in judgement of the appeal from the Judicial Commissioner. He was disallowed from making his case. I don’t know why. A man’s life was at stake. Five judges who sat in the earlier review and appeal cannot in my view be objective no matter how hard they may try and want to be. They should have viewed their position from the man in the dock and not from where they sit.
The AGC in claiming that the facts of the case were clear and that Kho Jabing was given the death sentence both under the old and the new law by the High Court and the Court of Appeal twice is erroneous. It conveniently forgets that one High Court judge sentenced Kho Jabing to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane while two Court of Appeal judges did not agree with the remaining three judges who decided that Kho Jabing must be hanged.
Kho Jabing’s case brings out the worst from the bench and the AGC. On 20 May, the Court of Appeal was packed with prosecutors, lawyers, interns, young activists and policemen both plain clothes and in uniform. The prosecutor, Mr Francis Ng accused Kho Jabing’s lawyers of abusing the court process. He accused Mr Dodwell of being absent from the chambers of the Judicial Commissioner “for reasons best known to himself” when he knew full well that Mr Dodwell was denied admission. When Mr Dodwell demanded an apology from Mr Francis Ng, the judges quickly brushed the demand aside instead of reprimanding the prosecutor for misleading the court. Was Mr Francis Ng upholding the “administration of justice” and maintaining “the fairness, integrity and efficiency” of proceedings?
On 19 May, the courts worked beyond office hours to hear and dismiss an application involving complex constitutional issues. The lawyers’ request for time to prepare the case was rejected. The Judicial Commissioner ordered that notice of appeal must be lodged by 11 pm before stay of execution would be granted. No one expected the courts to work at midnight. But it did. The appeal was fixed for hearing at 9 am the following morning. I believe neither the lawyers nor the prosecutors had any sleep.
The next day, the appeal was heard by the same five judge Court of Appeal, compounding the issue of apparent bias because Andrew Phang Boon Leong sat in the coram for the fourth time.
The appeal was dismissed at about 12.30 pm and the prisoner was rushed to the gallows and hanged at 3.30 pm. It was as if any delay would result in the prisoner escaping from the heavily armed police officers and Changi Prison. Everyone was shocked beyond words. The young lawyers and interns had their first taste of rough justice. The young activists cried. The family of Kho Jabing cried. The judges retired. The prosecutor disappeared only to reappear with this shameful statement five days after hanging Kho Jabing.
What is happening to our criminal justice system? Does compassion have a place? Kho Jabing is hanged despite a 3:2 judgement or a 3:3 decision if we add the High Court judge who gave him life. Someone tells me that they were in a hurry to hang Kho Jabing because Kho Jabing was a nobody but a poor Iban. Another person speculates that there was a concern that too many lawyers were willing to act pro bono for Kho Jabing. I don’t know. I just feel that this rush to hang the man is barbaric, wrong and unbecoming for a civilised nation.
Republished from Function 8’s FB.
