Do you have trust in the Singapore legal system?

[Balls2U]

Another low SES coolie genes shitskin lawyer got into trouble for misappropriating $4000 in excess legal fees.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...llegedly-made-off-with-4k-belonging-to-latter

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for 2 lawyers who tried to obstruct course of justice with contraband cigarette message​

Lawyers Wee Hong Shern (left) and Ong Peng Boon were both sentenced to jail. ST PHOTOS: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Sep 30, 2024

SINGAPORE - Two lawyers who attempted to obstruct the course of justice were each sentenced to jail on Sept 30.
Wee Hong Shern, 37, who had sent another lawyer, Ong Peng Boon, his direct supervisor at the time, a text message relating to contraband cigarettes in May 2019, was given seven months’ jail.
Ong, 68, who forwarded the message to a third man, identified as Tan Hock Ann, was sentenced to a year in jail. Tan was arrested in August 2019 for dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes.
In February, District Judge Marvin Bay convicted Wee and Ong of one count each of attempting to intentionally obstruct the course of justice.
Before handing down the sentences on Sept 30, the judge said: “The factual matrix, in my judgment, shows Mr Ong to have been far more deeply invested in the criminal activity than his junior colleague.
“The evidence shows Mr Ong to have maintained a tight veil of secrecy in respect of his dealings with (Mr Tan)... Given the obvious secrecy, I sense Mr Wee’s involvement had been for a far shorter term.”
However, Judge Bay stressed that the current case involved two legal professionals who have a duty to uphold justice and facilitate judicial processes.

He said: “They have instead exploited their privileged statuses during court proceedings to transmit and relay encrypted communications to a criminal organisation, in a bid to assist the group (to) avoid law enforcement action.”
According to court documents, Wee sent what had been described as a “cryptic” message to Ong at 11.52am on May 10, 2019.
The message said: “I talked to Ah Boon to update. Basically: Buffalo is busted. Factory is safe for now, but he warns it’s only a matter of time before they find out where it is as they have the SD (card) of Ah Boon’s vehicle.

“They can trace buffalo and find factory eventually. So he said to clear everything from Factory ASAP. Evidence has come out that ST has been paid by China man. His Zello phone was seized, and he didn’t have time (to) delete convos. Bail opened at 55K.”
The court heard that at the time, Wee had just attended a court mention of his then client, Selva Kumar Subramaniam, who had been charged with dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes. He then sent the message to Ong.
A minute later, Ong forwarded the message to Tan, who had earlier hired him to represent Selva. Ong followed up with another message: “Delete after read.”

The prosecution said it is undisputed that Wee had sent the message to Ong, who then forwarded it to Tan.
Referring to it as the “buffalo message”, deputy public prosecutors Timotheus Koh and Etsuko Lim stated in court documents: “The key question before the court is what Ong and Wee intended when they each sent (it).”
During the trial, one Toh Chin Wen, a syndicate member who was convicted of dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes, testified that “Ah Boon” was his nickname.
In its submissions, the prosecution said Selva, another syndicate member who had also testified, told the court that “buffalo” referred to a Malaysia-registered lorry carrying duty-unpaid cigarettes.
The DPPs also said: “Tan identified the ‘factory’ as the place where the duty-unpaid cigarettes were unloaded and handled... Selva testified that the SD card of Ah Boon’s vehicle had been seized by Customs.”
However, the DPPs said it is unclear who the “he” in this portion of Wee’s message referred to.
Meanwhile, the court heard that “ST” refers to one Lim Chee Siang, who was a member of the contraband cigarette syndicate.
The DPPs said: “Selva testified that the line, ‘His Zello phone was seized, and he didn’t have time (to) delete convos’, was what he had told Wee on May 10, 2019.
“In other words, Selva’s Zello phone had been seized before he could delete the conversations.”
As for the final line of the message which mentioned “55K”, the prosecution told the court it was undisputed that this was a reference to Selva having been offered bail of $55,000.
Court documents did not disclose the outcome of the cases involving Tan, Toh, Selva and Lim.
The DPPs told Judge Bay that there were clear links between the message and a syndicate dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes.
Ong is represented by lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam and Suang Wijaya, while Wee is represented by lawyer Ramesh Tiwary.
On Sept 30, the court heard that Ong and Wee intend to appeal against the convictions and sentences.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Prisons, AGC acted unlawfully, in breach of confidence over death-row inmates’ letters: Court of Appeal​

The letters were written by 13 prisoners on death row who were seeking damages for unlawful practice, breach of confidence and copyright infringement. ST PHOTO: GIN TAY

Samuel Devaraj

Oct 12, 2024

SINGAPORE – The Court of Appeal found that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) were in breach of confidence and acted unlawfully over the exchange of a number of letters belonging to 13 death-row inmates.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Senior Judge Judith Prakash and Justice Steven Chong, affirmed on Oct 11 the importance of a prisoner’s ownership over his correspondence and his right, within the bounds of the law, to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of his communications.
In a written judgment, the court noted that the AGC and the SPS, which is under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), have since taken steps to remedy the situation.
The letters were written by 13 prisoners on death row who were seeking damages for unlawful practice, breach of confidence and copyright infringement.
They had filed a civil case against the AGC in July 2021.
The prisoners were mostly drug offenders, but also included former policeman Iskandar Rahmat, who was convicted of the 2013 Kovan double murders of a businessman and his son.
The inmates had sent correspondence to various parties, including the Singapore Police Force and their lawyers.

The Court of Appeal said almost all the documents concerned past, pending or contemplated proceedings arising from the inmates’ convictions and sentences, and the dismissal of their appeals.
The documents included complaints against former counsel, requests for legal assistance, or were related to correspondence over clemency applications.
In an affidavit, Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong said that at the time when the documents were shared, the SPS and MHA would generally keep the AGC – as the Government’s legal adviser – informed of developments regarding inmates awaiting capital punishment.

They would also seek the AGC’s advice on whether there were any relevant pending proceedings, or issues which could give rise to such proceedings, that would require the capital punishment to be temporarily suspended.
“Given that the SPS and the MHA officers handling such matters were not legally trained, if they came across any document that appeared to be legal in nature, they would send it to the AGC for advice,” said Mr Tai.
Almost all the 68 documents sent by the SPS to the AGC were for this reason, the judges noted.
The practice led to a wholesale passing of the inmates’ correspondence to the AGC without either party assessing if anything in the correspondence even required the AGC to give the SPS legal advice.
The judges noted that the law allows prison officers to read all correspondence from or to prisoners and make copies of the letters, unless they are to or from the prisoner’s legal adviser.
However, this does not extend to permitting the SPS to make copies of letters to or from lawyers, or to give copies of any letters at all to anyone, including the AGC.

The judges said they recognised the possibility that the contents of the prisoners’ correspondence read by the SPS might require it to obtain legal or other advice to ensure the safety and good order of the prison or the public.
However, the SPS and AGC did not say the letters belonging to the 13 inmates required advice of such a nature.
The court said that in urgent matters, the SPS must make it clear to the AGC that the disclosure was only for the purpose of obtaining urgent advice.
Said the judges: “The AGC, for its part, would have to have systems in place to maintain the confidentiality of any documents disclosed for this purpose so that such documents are only disclosed to the officers tasked with providing the necessary advice to the SPS.”
The court accepted that although the AGC had not properly considered the importance of prisoners’ confidentiality when it obtained correspondence from the SPS, this was an oversight and not an attempt to seek an advantage in court proceedings.
“The AGC had also promptly destroyed its copies of the correspondence upon being informed of the proper procedure it ought to adopt in relation to correspondence from or to prisoners,” the judges added.
The judges upheld $10 nominal damages to three prisoners granted earlier by the High Court for breach of copyright. No damages were awarded to the 13 prisoners for breach of confidence.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for woman who cheated cycling buddy of $4,000 despite knowing victim was bankrupt​

The victim raised funds after pawning her gold bracelet and handed $4,000 in cash to Rozita Mohamed Rosli (pictured) in July 2022. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Nov 13, 2024

SINGAPORE – An officer from the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office (IPTO) of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) made an unauthorised search on her workplace computer system and found out her cycling buddy was a bankrupt.
Despite this, Rozita Mohamed Rosli went on to cheat the 46-year-old woman of $4,000 by claiming that the money was for a so-called “top-up” which was purportedly required as part of a process to discharge herself from bankruptcy.
Rozita even suggested the victim borrow money from her brother-in-law when she said she did not have enough cash at the time.
The victim managed to raise the funds after pawning her gold bracelet and handed $4,000 in cash to Rozita in July 2022.
On Nov 13, the 42-year-old offender was sentenced to 15 months’ jail after she pleaded guilty to one count each of cheating and misusing a computer system.
Rozita, who has since returned the full amount to the victim, was an individual insolvency administrator at IPTO at the time of the offences.
Responding to queries from The Straits Times, MinLaw said it found out about Rozita’s case in January 2023.

The ministry was notified in March 2024 that Rozita would be charged in court for offences disclosed during police investigations. She was then suspended on half-pay in accordance with civil service guidelines.
“While police investigations were ongoing, the officer was redeployed to a role with no access to bankruptcy or other sensitive information,” said its spokesperson, adding that MinLaw is initiating disciplinary proceedings against her after the conviction.
Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) June Ngian said the victim was declared a bankrupt in June 2017.

Under a certain scheme, she had to make monthly payments of $120 over five years for a total payment of $6,000.
Rozita got to know her in around February 2022 and the pair became cycling buddies soon after.
In May 2022, Rozita suspected the victim was a bankrupt and decided to find out more about it.
Rozita was at her workplace when she unlawfully used her computer to look for the victim’s information in an internal computer system. She then found out the victim was a bankrupt.
In June 2022, she called and told the victim that she knew about her bankruptcy.
They were with a group of friends later that month when Rozita asked the victim if they could speak in private. She then duped the victim into believing that a $4,000 top-up was required as part of a process to discharge herself from bankruptcy.

The DPP said: “The accused... told the victim that she spoke to the victim’s individual insolvency administrator... about the victim’s case and that the victim would need to stand-by an additional $4,000 in cash.
“The accused explained that the $6,000 repaid was insufficient and that an additional $4,000 would be required for her to be successfully discharged as a bankrupt if any of her creditors objected to her discharge.”
Rozita claimed the additional $4,000 was “part of a scheme for all bankruptcy cases”.
She told the victim that if her creditors objected to her being discharged from being a bankrupt, MinLaw would use the $4,000 as a “counter proposal” to help her become a discharged bankrupt.
Rozita also told her the $4,000 would be refunded in full if the creditors rejected the proposal.
The victim fell for the lies and handed her $4,000 in cash on July 10, 2022.
On Dec 13, 2022, the victim received an e-mail from MinLaw involving her certificate of discharge in bankruptcy. She asked Rozita for the refund but failed to receive the money.
The truth finally emerged when the victim called the MinLaw hotline and spoke to an attending officer about the matter.
She confronted Rozita who returned the $4,000 on Jan 5, 2023. The victim also spoke to a friend and found out that Rozita had told the friend about her bankruptcy status.
The victim then wrote an e-mail to MinLaw alleging that Rozita had divulged personal information relating to her bankruptcy to a third party.
In its statement, MinLaw said it was alerted about the case in January 2023 and an internal investigation panel looked into the matter, which was referred to the police two months later.
Rozita’s bail was set at $15,000 on Nov 13 and she is expected to begin serving her sentence on Dec 4.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Singapore judge chides lawyer for convoluted mitigation filled with grammatical errors​

District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation. PHOTO: PIXABAY

Samuel Devaraj

Nov 19, 2024

SINGAPORE - A judge chided a criminal lawyer for the poor quality of a written mitigation plea the latter submitted to the court on behalf of a client who admitted to a cheating charge.
In a judgment dated Nov 11, District Judge Lim Tse Haw said he told Mr A. Revi Shanker that his mitigation was “so convoluted and verbose” and filled with grammatical errors, that he had difficulty understanding what the lawyer was trying to submit.
The judge said: “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner. This would save much valuable judicial time in reading and understanding the submissions.”
In order to understand the mitigation, he asked Mr Shanker to make an oral presentation in court.
Mr Shanker’s client Jeremy Francis Cruez was sentenced to six months’ jail in October. The 60-year-old Sri Lankan national had admitted to cheating his former company, Major’s Pest Management Services.
The prosecution had asked for a jail term of between 14 and 16 months, while Mr Shanker asked for a fine.

While both sides appealed the sentence, court records show that Cruez has since discontinued his appeal.

As a fumigation manager, Cruez was responsible for ensuring that the supplies required for fumigation works were obtained.
Between April 13, 2017 and Oct 22, 2019, he submitted fake or forged invoices to his company for fumigation-related supplies from six suppliers, seeking a total of $190,455.60. The amount was to be paid in cash.
In fact, Cruez had bought the supplies from other sources and marked up the prices in the fake or forged invoices by 5 per cent. He had intended to pocket the difference.

When he was questioned by the company’s managing director why the suppliers required cash payment, he explained that they had been paid in cash under Major’s previous managing director.
He provided e-mails from the suppliers who purportedly requested for payment in cash or for the cheque to be made out to a person called Myrna, who was stated to be an “executive in charge of accounts” in the e-mails. However, Myrna was his close friend who was working as a domestic helper.
Believing the ruse, the company disbursed $190,455.60 as payment for the supplies to either Cruez or Myrna.
In the judgment, District Judge Lim highlighted the first paragraph of Mr Shanker’s mitigation, which comprised a single sentence of 176 words.
In the paragraph, among many other points, Mr Shanker said his client had to “live at the mercy of friends and relatives whose assistance is only, not unexpectedly, thinning away such that his queues for food (breakfast, lunch and dinner) on a daily basis at religious place of worship and other organisations have become more frequent”.
District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation.
To avoid any misunderstanding of the mitigation, the judge asked the lawyer to summarise orally at a hearing on Oct 22, 2024, what he was trying to submit.
Mr Shanker said during the hearing that Cruez was not qualifying his plea of guilt.
He added that his client had offered to make full restitution to Major’s Pest Management Services of the sum of $12,953.73, which was Cruez’s personal gains from the offence. But the offer was declined by the pest control company.
While rejecting the defence’s submission for a fine, District Judge Lim said the prosecution’s submission for 14 to 16 month’s jail was manifestly excessive.
“Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of $190,455.60 and left the company in a lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months’ imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate,” he said.

The first paragraph of the mitigation plea that District Judge Lim Tse Haw deemed convoluted and verbose. PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS

 

[NanoSpeed]

Singapore judge chides lawyer for convoluted mitigation filled with grammatical errors​

District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation. PHOTO: PIXABAY

Samuel Devaraj

Nov 19, 2024

SINGAPORE - A judge chided a criminal lawyer for the poor quality of a written mitigation plea the latter submitted to the court on behalf of a client who admitted to a cheating charge.
In a judgment dated Nov 11, District Judge Lim Tse Haw said he told Mr A. Revi Shanker that his mitigation was “so convoluted and verbose” and filled with grammatical errors, that he had difficulty understanding what the lawyer was trying to submit.
The judge said: “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner. This would save much valuable judicial time in reading and understanding the submissions.”
In order to understand the mitigation, he asked Mr Shanker to make an oral presentation in court.
Mr Shanker’s client Jeremy Francis Cruez was sentenced to six months’ jail in October. The 60-year-old Sri Lankan national had admitted to cheating his former company, Major’s Pest Management Services.
The prosecution had asked for a jail term of between 14 and 16 months, while Mr Shanker asked for a fine.

While both sides appealed the sentence, court records show that Cruez has since discontinued his appeal.

As a fumigation manager, Cruez was responsible for ensuring that the supplies required for fumigation works were obtained.
Between April 13, 2017 and Oct 22, 2019, he submitted fake or forged invoices to his company for fumigation-related supplies from six suppliers, seeking a total of $190,455.60. The amount was to be paid in cash.
In fact, Cruez had bought the supplies from other sources and marked up the prices in the fake or forged invoices by 5 per cent. He had intended to pocket the difference.

When he was questioned by the company’s managing director why the suppliers required cash payment, he explained that they had been paid in cash under Major’s previous managing director.
He provided e-mails from the suppliers who purportedly requested for payment in cash or for the cheque to be made out to a person called Myrna, who was stated to be an “executive in charge of accounts” in the e-mails. However, Myrna was his close friend who was working as a domestic helper.
Believing the ruse, the company disbursed $190,455.60 as payment for the supplies to either Cruez or Myrna.
In the judgment, District Judge Lim highlighted the first paragraph of Mr Shanker’s mitigation, which comprised a single sentence of 176 words.
In the paragraph, among many other points, Mr Shanker said his client had to “live at the mercy of friends and relatives whose assistance is only, not unexpectedly, thinning away such that his queues for food (breakfast, lunch and dinner) on a daily basis at religious place of worship and other organisations have become more frequent”.
District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation.
To avoid any misunderstanding of the mitigation, the judge asked the lawyer to summarise orally at a hearing on Oct 22, 2024, what he was trying to submit.
Mr Shanker said during the hearing that Cruez was not qualifying his plea of guilt.
He added that his client had offered to make full restitution to Major’s Pest Management Services of the sum of $12,953.73, which was Cruez’s personal gains from the offence. But the offer was declined by the pest control company.
While rejecting the defence’s submission for a fine, District Judge Lim said the prosecution’s submission for 14 to 16 month’s jail was manifestly excessive.
“Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of $190,455.60 and left the company in a lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months’ imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate,” he said.

The first paragraph of the mitigation plea that District Judge Lim Tse Haw deemed convoluted and verbose. PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS

The lawyer will do well as a food connoisseur. He can write good reviews

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer disbarred over using injured worker’s settlement sum to pay his own fees​

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Nov 25, 2024

SINGAPORE - Lawyer Joseph Chen has been struck off the rolls for professional misconduct relating to two separate cases in which he acted for migrant workers who were seeking compensation for workplace injuries.

In one case, Mr Chen entered into a settlement agreement without the client’s knowledge and consent, and used the $6,000 settlement sum he received to pay his firm’s fees and his employees.

In the other case, Mr Chen’s inaction for nine months caused the client’s lawsuit to be automatically discontinued.

The striking-off was handed down on Nov 25 by the Court of Three Judges, which has the power to suspend or disbar errant lawyers.

The court, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said it will give written reasons at a later date.

Mr Chen, who was called to the Bar in 1998, was the sole proprietor of Joseph Chen & Co.

In 2016, the lawyer was hired by Mr Jony Advaita Sarkar, who was injured on April 6, 2016, while working for his then-employer, GSI Offshore.

The Bangladeshi national was struck by a large metal pipe at the premises of Dyna-Mac Engineering Services and fell backwards. He was given about 70 days’ medical leave and suffered a 2 per cent permanent disability.

Mr Jony returned to Bangladesh in August 2017, after appointing the law firm to act for him and signing a power of attorney that allowed Mr Chen to act on his behalf.

In November 2017, the firm filed a lawsuit against GSI Offshore and Dyna-Mac on Mr Jony’s behalf, claiming damages of at least of $172,070.63.


The suit was settled in late 2018. Under the terms of the settlement, Mr Jony was to receive the total sum of $11,000, with $6,000 to be paid by Dyna-Mac and $5,000 to be paid by GSI Offshore.

The cheque for $6,000 issued by Dyna-Mac was eventually used to pay the law firm’s fees and expenses, and to reimburse two employees.

In January 2020, the law firm filed a notice to discontinue the suit against Dyna-Mac. GSI Offshore did not pay the $5,000.

Mr Jony found out about the settlement in November 2020. He lodged a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore against Mr Chen the following month.

In May 2022, Chief Justice Menon appointed a disciplinary tribunal to investigate 11 charges brought by the Law Society against Mr Chen.
More On This Topic
Second jail term for ex-lawyer who deceived company director into giving him $13,400
All 14 charges withdrawn for ex-lawyer accused of alleged links to illegal moneylending business
The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Tan Tee Jim and Mr Manoj Pillay Sandrasegara, found him guilty of 10 charges for breaches of various legal profession rules.

In its report, the tribunal said Mr Chen’s misconduct was especially egregious in relation to his failure to inform the client and seek his consent regarding the settlement, the discontinuance of the suit, the receipt of the settlement sum, and the use of the money.

“He kept the complainant totally in the dark regarding these matters. This misconduct demonstrates his complete dereliction of the duties to his client and is inexcusable and wholly unmitigated,” said the tribunal.

The other case involved Mr Masud Rana Abdul Jalil Hawlader, who allegedly suffered an injury in August 2012 when he was seated in a lorry.

Mr Masud initially hired another firm to act for him. After he returned to Bangladesh, the firm filed a suit on his behalf in August 2014.

In 2015, Mr Masud authorised his relative, Mr Md Alamin, to appoint Mr Chen’s firm as his new lawyers.

In October 2016, the suit was deemed discontinued under court rules, as no steps had been taken within a year of the last step.

Mr Masud returned to Singapore in July 2018.

After learning that the suit had been discontinued, he lodged a complaint to the Law Society, which brought three charges against Mr Chen.

The Law Society argued that Mr Chen had breached legal profession rules by failing to contact Mr Masud between February 2016 and October 2016.

A disciplinary tribunal was appointed by the Chief Justice in January 2023 to look into the case.


Mr Chen argued that he did not owe any duty to Mr Masud and did not breach legal profession rules.

He alleged that the retainer was invalid because he had reason to believe that Mr Masud’s claim was “bogus” and that “no accident happened”.

The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi and Mr Wong Siew Hong, rejected this argument.

In its report, the tribunal noted the formation of the solicitor-client relationship was independent of the merits of the client’s claim.

The tribunal found him guilty of misconduct for failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence, failing to provide timely advice to Mr Masud, and failing to supervise his staff.

 

[Balls2U]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ed-workers-settlement-sum-to-pay-his-own-fees

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Make it easier for those who win cases at Small Claims Tribunals to get their money​

Jan 27, 2025

The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) were established to provide ordinary citizens with a simple, inexpensive way to resolve disputes without lawyers. However, when defendants don’t pay up, the convoluted enforcement process completely undermines this purpose.

Recently, I won a case at the SCT against a company that provided fraudulent services. Despite a clear order, the company refused to pay the judgment sum. This is where the supposedly simple system breaks down.

To enforce the SCT order, claimants must navigate complex district court procedures. One must file an originating application, ex parte summons and various affidavits – terms most laypeople would not understand.

When I was at the State Courts filing these documents, the secretary told me people often need to make multiple trips to get everything correct.

The process involves multiple court systems, confusing filing procedures, and documents that must be sworn before commissioners of oaths. What started as a straightforward SCT claim became a maze of legal procedures, practically requiring a lawyer’s expertise.

This creates a troubling situation. Many successful SCT claimants may give up on enforcement because the process is too daunting, or they have to incur legal costs that could exceed their claim amount. This effectively rewards defendants who refuse to pay SCT orders, knowing that enforcement is beyond most people’s capabilities.

If you win an SCT case against someone who refuses to pay, should you need a law degree or a lawyer to enforce a judgment from a court specifically designed to help ordinary citizens?


While the system works well up to the judgment stage, the enforcement process needs urgent reform to maintain the SCT’s purpose of providing accessible justice.

A simplified, user-friendly enforcement process would ensure that SCT judgments actually result in justice being served.

Solomon Poon Ke Foong

 

[True Believer]

People tend to seek out and recall info that confirms existing beliefs; these include generalisations about others. As a result, the reinforcement of stereotypes makes it difficult to change our minds even when we have contradictory evidence before us.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

High Court highlights district judge’s failure to provide own analysis in judgment​

High Court judge Aidan Xu set aside the district judge’s decision and decided the entire case afresh.PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Dec 06, 2024

SINGAPORE – A district judge’s use of substantial portions of the prosecution’s submissions in his judgment without his own analysis has been flagged by the High Court as a serious concern.

High Court judge Aidan Xu said in a written judgment issued on Dec 3 that the district judge had failed to apply his mind to the material before him in the case of a taxi driver who was convicted of molesting a teenage girl.

The taxi driver – 44-year-old Ler Chun Poh – was convicted in October 2023 and sentenced to eight months’ jail.

Justice Xu, whose judgment came after hearing an appeal by the taxi driver against his conviction and sentence, set aside the district judge’s decision and decided the entire case afresh.

Ultimately, he concluded that there was no apparent bias, and arrived at the same outcome.

Justice Xu did not name the lower court judge, as is the practice in appellate court judgments. A check showed that the trial judge was District Judge Soh Tze Bian.

This is the second time the judicial officer’s conduct has been publicly highlighted.

In September 2023, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said Judge Soh’s conduct in reproducing large chunks of the prosecution’s submissions in his written grounds of decision was “wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of judicial practice”.

In the current case, Ler was accused of molesting a 17-year-old girl three times in his taxi on the pretext of helping her put on or remove her seatbelt.

Ler had spotted the girl waiting at a bus stop in Choa Chu Kang on Oct 29, 2021.

He offered her a free ride after she said she was going to a nearby carpark. She believed she had left her phone in a car from car-sharing service BlueSG that was parked in the area.

When she failed to find the car, Ler offered to drop her off nearby, and she boarded the taxi again, sitting in the front passenger seat.

Ler said he did not touch her.

He also insisted that the teenager had created a “good chance” of molestation.

He asserted that although he was given many chances by her, he did not “concede to her advancing” and had escaped “such allurement” because he was not interested in her.

Judge Soh found him guilty of all three charges after a nine-day trial. After Ler was convicted and sentenced, he appealed to the High Court.

At the first hearing of the appeal in April 2024, Justice Xu raised concerns that the trial judge’s written grounds of decision bore a number of similarities to the prosecution’s trial submissions.

Both the defence and prosecution later put in further arguments on the similarities and the possible recourse.

In his judgment, Justice Xu noted that judges are entrusted with the task of deciding cases.

This requires that they weigh the parties’ arguments, scrutinise the evidence and interpret and apply the law in coming to a decision.

He said a side-by-side comparison of the trial judge’s decision on conviction and the prosecution’s trial submissions clearly showed that they were “replete with similarities”.

Significant parts of the district judge’s decision replicate the substantive reasoning, mirror the structure, and adopt similar word and stylistic choices as in the prosecution’s trial submissions.

“The (district) judge could be said to have exhibited an almost unwavering adherence to both the substance and form of the prosecution’s trial submissions,” he said.

In spite of the district judge’s failure to judiciously consider the material before him, Justice Xu said there were no circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias.

He noted that the district judge had independently summarised Ler’s version of events. This showed that he did not shut his mind to Ler’s testimony.

A detailed analysis of the trial transcript also showed that the district judge gave leeway to Ler in his questioning of the victim and the prosecution’s witnesses.

Ler’s previous lawyer discharged himself midway through the trial.

Justice Xu acknowledged that Ler’s defence was “arguably rambling and tautological” and mostly meritless or irrelevant.

Nonetheless, the lack of merit or cogency was not a sufficient justification to replicate the other side’s submissions in full, he said.

After looking through the evidence, he found the victim’s testimony to be unusually convincing and well-corroborated, and there was no reason for her to fabricate the accusations.

He did not believe Ler’s assertions that he could have touched her “accidentally”.

 

[True Believer]

The strict separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary is essential for a genuine democracy. Each branch acts as a check on the others, preventing any 1 branch from overstepping its authority. However, our Govt believes that it can be and must be its own check and balance. This is why we have abuse and authoritarianism.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Court refers lawyer for disciplinary inquiry over firm’s ‘excessive’ $370,000 bill​

The Appellate Division of the High Court set out its concerns over various aspects of the lawyer's conduct.ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO

Selina Lum
Dec 09, 2024

SINGAPORE – A lawyer who handled a lawsuit for the parents of a 31-year-old man over their son’s suicide is facing a disciplinary inquiry after a court said it had “grave concerns” that he had overcharged the couple.

Mr V.K. Rai of Arbiters Inc Law Corporation was one of two lawyers who represented Mr Steven Joseph Arokiasamy and Madam Tan Kin Tee in a medical negligence suit that sought $3.3 million in damages.

Mr Steven, 69, and Madam Tan, 68, later dropped both lawyers, and personally settled the case for $330,000 with the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and Dr Nelson Lee, a psychiatrist in private practice.

After the settlement, Arbiters sued the couple to press for payment of bills amounting to about $370,000.

The sum comprised $363,000 in professional fees and about $7,400 in disbursements, which are out-of-pocket expenses. The dispute was mainly over the fees.

In January, a High Court judge slashed the total sum to $60,000, saying that the fees were “excessive”.

The firm appealed.

The Appellate Division of the High Court similarly said the fees were excessive and amounted to overcharging, but adjusted the sum from $60,000 to $87,000.

The three-judge court also said it was referring Mr Rai’s conduct to the Law Society of Singapore for an inquiry.

In written grounds of decision issued on Dec 5, the court set out its reasons for finding the bill excessive and its concerns over various aspects of Mr Rai’s conduct.

Mr Steven and Madam Tan had engaged Mr Anil Balchandani of law firm Red Lion Circle in 2020 to sue IMH and two doctors for alleged negligence.

They blamed the defendants for the suicide of their son, Mr Salvin Foster Steven, on Sept 7, 2017.

After the suit was filed, the couple also engaged Mr Rai in November 2020.

It was later decided that the couple would be separately represented.

In April 2021, Mr Steven engaged Mr Rai to act for him. Madam Tan remained represented by Mr Balchandani.

On Dec 3, 2021, the couple dropped their claim against one defendant, Dr Gomathinayagam Kandasami from IMH.

A year later, IMH and Dr Lee offered to settle the case for $200,000. After the couple counter-offered with $450,000, the defendants raised their offer to $270,000, but no deal was reached.

Meanwhile, Mr Rai was supposed to file the affidavit of an expert witness by Oct 25, 2022, but did not do so.

On Jan 12, 2023, which was to be the first day of the trial, Mr Rai applied to file the affidavit, and the trial was adjourned to September that year.

On July 17 that year, the defendants increased their offer to $330,000. Mr Rai claimed that the couple would not settle for less than $2 million, plus full coverage of their legal fees.

Later that month, on July 26, the couple discharged both lawyers. They then contacted the defendants, who agreed to pay them $330,000 without admission of liability.

A day after he was discharged, Mr Rai issued a bill to Mr Steven including $341,410.75 for fees and disbursements, which was not paid.

Mr Rai had earlier issued bills for work done from November 2020 to April 2021. The couple paid $56,065, leaving $29,006.68 unpaid.

Mr Balchandani separately issued a bill for $145,061.55, part of which has been paid.

On Aug 2, 2023, Mr Rai tried to get a court order to ensure that the settlement money is held by the court until legal fees are paid. The attempt failed.

Two months later, Arbiters sued Mr Steven and Madam Tan for the total outstanding sum.

The firm argued that the couple have to pay because the letters of engagement they signed constituted valid agreements on costs.

Mr Steven, who retired from the Ministry of Defence in 2020, and Madam Tan, a part-time teacher, said the costs would deprive them entirely of the settlement sum.

Under the Legal Profession Act, a lawyer and a client are free to reach an agreement on costs for contentious matters such as court proceedings.

However, the court can void such agreements if they are found to be unfair or unreasonable.

In the current case, the Appellate Division found that the terms were unreasonable.

The court noted that the total fees charged were more than 2.5 times the stated estimate of $150,000.

If Mr Rai were allowed to claim the full amount of the fees, the couple would be entirely deprived of the settlement sum, the court said.

The court added that the case was not as complicated as Mr Rai had portrayed it to be.

Taking into account that Arbiters had done work up to the point of preparing for trial, the court awarded $87,000.

It also ordered Mr Steven to pay £12,300 (S$20,541) for the expert witness’ fees.

Turning to Mr Rai’s conduct, the court said he could not give a good explanation for why the couple needed separate representation, which unnecessarily expanded their legal costs.

Mr Rai should also have advised the couple that the fees were escalating beyond estimates, said the court.

The judges added that Mr Rai gave them the misleading impression that the couple were unwilling to have the costs assessed when, in fact, they were amenable to it.

 

[True Believer]

I believe most S'poreans trust our legal system more than that of North Korea. LOL!

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

District Judge Soh Tze Bian leaves his position​

Mr Soh Tze Bian made the news in the past two years after the quality of his work had been publicly highlighted twice by two Supreme Court judges.ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO

Nadine Chua
Feb 11, 2025


SINGAPORE - District Judge Soh Tze Bian has left his positions as a judge and a deputy registrar of the State Courts.

A Government Gazette notice published on Jan 16 said Mr Soh would cease to be a district judge and deputy registrar of the State Courts from Jan 17.

In response to queries, a spokesman for the Judiciary said on Feb 11 that Mr Soh, who was appointed a district judge on Aug 1, 2008, retired from the Singapore Judicial Service.

Mr Soh made the news in the past two years after the quality of his work had been publicly highlighted twice by two Supreme Court judges.

In September 2023, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said Mr Soh had fallen short of the standards of professionalism expected of the judiciary after he was found to have reproduced large chunks of the prosecution’s submissions in his written grounds of decision.

The Chief Justice ruled that while the district judge’s conduct was wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of judicial practice, it did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias.

CJ Menon said: “I do not regard this as reflective of the general attitude of our judicial officers, who uniformly and consistently uphold the highest standards in their daily work of discharging the grave responsibility that is entrusted to them. Their efforts should not be tarnished by this incident.”

The Chief Justice made these remarks as he delivered his decision to allow an appeal by a man whom Mr Soh had sentenced to 16 weeks’ jail in April 2023 for conspiring with a doctor to falsify Covid-19 vaccination records.

CJ Menon reduced the offender’s jail term to 12 weeks after concluding that the risk of the potential harm to the Health Promotion Board was low.

The second incident happened in December 2024, when Mr Soh again used substantial portions of the prosecution’s submissions in his judgment without his own analysis.

High Court judge Aidan Xu said in a written judgment that the district judge had failed to apply his mind to the material before him in the case of a taxi driver who was convicted of molesting a teenage girl.

The High Court judge did not identify Mr Soh in his judgment, as is the practice in appellate court judgments, but a check showed that the trial judge was Mr Soh.

The taxi driver was convicted in October 2023 and sentenced to eight months’ jail.

After the taxi driver appealed against his conviction and sentence, Justice Xu set aside Mr Soh’s decision and decided the entire case afresh.

Ultimately, the High Court judge concluded that there was no apparent bias, and the conviction and sentence remained.

When asked if Mr Soh’s retirement was due to the quality of his work being critiqued, the Judiciary said they had no further comments on this matter.

​

 

[True Believer]

Why are there so many wallabies outside the State Courts?

 

[k1976]

Most Dangerous’ Year For Indian Markets​

Top fund manager flags rising risks for retail investors

Construction workers in Mumbai.
Photographer: Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg
By Menaka Doshi
13 February 2025 at 2:31 PM SGT
Save
Translate


Welcome to India Edition, I’m Menaka Doshi. Join me each week for a ringside view of the billionaires, businesses and policy decisions behind India’s rise as an emerging economic powerhouse.

You can subscribe here, and share feedback with me here.

This week: How will India’s young investors react to a bear market, Bajaj bets on health care and a visit to India Energy Week.

Winter Is Coming​

A top Indian fund manager’s warning on market excesses has gotten under everyone’s skin, fund managers and investors alike. It’s a sign that a stocks winter may be coming that will test, among many other things, their faith in each other.

This is the “most dangerous year from a 10-year point of view,” Sankaran Naren, chief investment officer at ICICI Prudential AMC, the nation’s second-biggest money manager, said in a now-viral speech at an industry event last week.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

AGC urges public to avoid ‘baseless claims’ against judiciary after WP chief Pritam Singh’s conviction​

AGC released its statement hours after Mr Pritam Singh was convicted of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee.ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Vanessa Paige Chelvan
Feb 17, 2025

SINGAPORE – The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has urged the public to avoid making baseless claims against the judiciary or prosecution, after the court issued its verdict on Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s case.

In a statement on Feb 17, AGC said that while it respects the public’s right to comment on court decisions, “intentionally publishing comments with unfounded allegations and making suggestions of partiality against the judiciary may constitute contempt of court”.

AGC released this statement hours after Singh was convicted of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. He has been fined $7,000 for each of his two charges - a total of $14,000.

The prosecution takes its mission to uphold the rule of law seriously, regardless of an accused person’s status or position, AGC said.

It noted that “there have been several cases in the past where prominent political figures have been prosecuted, including a recent case involving a former Minister”.

Former transport minister S. Iswaran was handed a 12-month jail term on Oct 3, 2024 in a landmark case. He had earlier pleaded guilty to five charges – four for obtaining valuable items as a public servant and one for obstructing the course of justice.

AGC called on the public to “engage in constructive discussions while respecting the legal process and the principles of justice that underpin our nation”.

 

[True Believer]

AGC urges public to avoid ‘baseless claims’ against judiciary after WP chief Pritam Singh’s conviction
SINGAPORE – The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has urged the public to avoid making baseless claims against the judiciary or prosecution, after the court issued its verdict on Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s case.

The public understands that no judge will dare to rule in favour of an Opposition Party member after the demotion of Senior District Judge Michael Khoo many years ago for daring to acquit J B Jeyaretnam. LKY ensured that a clear and unmistakeable signal was sent to the Judiciary that day.