TODAY PAPER: 10 DECEMBER 2008
Lawyer questions different treatment
Law not applied equally to richand poor in compounding of offences, says Subhas Anandan
[email protected]
CRIMINAL lawyer Subhas Anandan wonders if there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
.
Writing in the latest issue of Probono, the official publication of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS), Mr Anandan pointed to stark discrepancies in the treatment of compounding of offences.
.
He cited several cases where the courts refused to allow the accused to privately settle with the victims, apparently in the public interest.
.
For instance, the victim of a road rage incident had accepted an ex gratia payment after being assaulted by a certain Mr Timothy Chua. However, the magistrate withheld the composition as he felt that would be going against the strict policy on road rage incidents, a view upheld by then Chief Justice Yong Pung How.
.
The matter went to trial and Mr Chua was fined the maximum $1,000, but the victim lost the compensation of $8,000.
.
Mr Anandan, who has just been elected for another two years as ACLS’president, pointed out that the Subordinate Courts very rarely overruled the objection of a public prosecutor to compound an offence.
.
“This happens so often that one cannot be faulted for thinking that the decision to compound a case depends on the public prosecutor even though there is no mention of him in Section 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,” he wrote.
.
On the other hand, when the accused is well-off or a professional, the offender is allowed to compound the offence with no objection from the prosecutors.Those thus let off cited by Mr Anandan included a dentist, a doctor and the wife of Venture Corporation head Wong Ngit Liong, who slapped an air stewardess during a flight. .
The questions to be asked regarding the latter instance included: “Why was public interest ignored in these cases?” Why was there no objection from the public prosecutor and why didn’t the court use its judicial power and withhold consent,Mr Anandan asked.
.
“The authorities concerned must answer these questions and explain why these people were allowed to compound their offences. If no satisfactory answers are forthcoming, you cannot blame the man in the street for thinking that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor,” Mr Anandan said. .
In the same issue, the newsletter’s editorial noted that while its members generally enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the judges, “there are some judicial attitudes that are troubling”.
.
As an example, it cited a District Judge who, before he granted probation, told the accused that he was lucky the prosecution was not objecting to the probation.
.
“Probono is concerned. An accused person is granted probation by the Court based on the facts, the law, recommendations of the Probation Report and the conscience of the judge. The grant of probation had nothing to do with whether the Prosecution objected or not,” the editorial said.
.
It also lambasted judges who made lawyers wait unnecessarily for hours in court before hearing their cases.
.
“Counsel’s time is also valuable. Probono feels that it is time that counsel’s time is respected. When the judge finally appears, after having kept counsel and the public waiting, he does not apologise for being late. Why such boorish behaviour?”
Because the kanagroo wanted to act like papaya, no apology needed.
Lawyer questions different treatment
Law not applied equally to richand poor in compounding of offences, says Subhas Anandan
[email protected]
CRIMINAL lawyer Subhas Anandan wonders if there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
.
Writing in the latest issue of Probono, the official publication of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS), Mr Anandan pointed to stark discrepancies in the treatment of compounding of offences.
.
He cited several cases where the courts refused to allow the accused to privately settle with the victims, apparently in the public interest.
.
For instance, the victim of a road rage incident had accepted an ex gratia payment after being assaulted by a certain Mr Timothy Chua. However, the magistrate withheld the composition as he felt that would be going against the strict policy on road rage incidents, a view upheld by then Chief Justice Yong Pung How.
.
The matter went to trial and Mr Chua was fined the maximum $1,000, but the victim lost the compensation of $8,000.
.
Mr Anandan, who has just been elected for another two years as ACLS’president, pointed out that the Subordinate Courts very rarely overruled the objection of a public prosecutor to compound an offence.
.
“This happens so often that one cannot be faulted for thinking that the decision to compound a case depends on the public prosecutor even though there is no mention of him in Section 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,” he wrote.
.
On the other hand, when the accused is well-off or a professional, the offender is allowed to compound the offence with no objection from the prosecutors.Those thus let off cited by Mr Anandan included a dentist, a doctor and the wife of Venture Corporation head Wong Ngit Liong, who slapped an air stewardess during a flight. .
The questions to be asked regarding the latter instance included: “Why was public interest ignored in these cases?” Why was there no objection from the public prosecutor and why didn’t the court use its judicial power and withhold consent,Mr Anandan asked.
.
“The authorities concerned must answer these questions and explain why these people were allowed to compound their offences. If no satisfactory answers are forthcoming, you cannot blame the man in the street for thinking that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor,” Mr Anandan said. .
In the same issue, the newsletter’s editorial noted that while its members generally enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the judges, “there are some judicial attitudes that are troubling”.
.
As an example, it cited a District Judge who, before he granted probation, told the accused that he was lucky the prosecution was not objecting to the probation.
.
“Probono is concerned. An accused person is granted probation by the Court based on the facts, the law, recommendations of the Probation Report and the conscience of the judge. The grant of probation had nothing to do with whether the Prosecution objected or not,” the editorial said.
.
It also lambasted judges who made lawyers wait unnecessarily for hours in court before hearing their cases.
.
“Counsel’s time is also valuable. Probono feels that it is time that counsel’s time is respected. When the judge finally appears, after having kept counsel and the public waiting, he does not apologise for being late. Why such boorish behaviour?”
Because the kanagroo wanted to act like papaya, no apology needed.
