How Come Justice Choo does not know the Law? Got snookered by apuneh lawyer.

[MentisMortis]

Can this be done under the procedure as it stands? This was a criminal appeal case afterall.

Porfirio,

The appellate laws still allow appeals even after a decision is reached in the highest court of the land. There are provisions in common law and in the Court Judicature Act for such a process.

Generally, when a decision that is made was based on flawed representations, (as in this case defence counsel had acknowledged having misled the court), that would manifestly diminish the dispensation of justice, the AG can and should appeal that decision and tender evidence to that effect.

The rule of thumb is that when sentencing is manifestly inadequate the AG may seek to have that sentence re-evaluated. This is wholly appropriate in this case where the mandatory jail sentence was a mere day when in practice it should be up to 2 years.

This gross inadequacy and inconsistency, no matter how hard the Justices try to say that is a one off thing and should not be used as precedent, shows that they recognise their own failure and have done nothing to rectify it or act pro-actively so that justice is indeed done.

I'm not sure but many are saying because of her connections the AG will not be looking into it any further.

Cheers,

MentisMortis

 

[Papsmearer]

Porfirio,

The appellate laws still allow appeals even after a decision is reached in the highest court of the land. There are provisions in common law and in the Court Judicature Act for such a process.

Generally, when a decision that is made was based on flawed representations, (as in this case defence counsel had acknowledged having misled the court), that would manifestly diminish the dispensation of justice, the AG can and should appeal that decision and tender evidence to that effect.

The rule of thumb is that when sentencing is manifestly inadequate the AG may seek to have that sentence re-evaluated. This is wholly appropriate in this case where the mandatory jail sentence was a mere day when in practice it should be up to 2 years.

This gross inadequacy and inconsistency, no matter how hard the Justices try to say that is a one off thing and should not be used as precedent, shows that they recognise their own failure and have done nothing to rectify it or act pro-actively so that justice is indeed done.

I'm not sure but many are saying because of her connections the AG will not be looking into it any further.

Cheers,

MentisMortis

I can practically guarantee u that the AG will do nothing. This whole appeal has been a set up from day one. Notice that the prosecutor did not use information in the original trial against the appeal. Info such as:
- She was late for a spa appointment at Raffles Town club. Hence she was running the red light to save time.
- She was on the phone with her son at that time.
- She did not attempt to give any aid to the victims, that would be what a decent human would do. Instead, she comes out of her car holding her phone.
- She did not show any remorse at all, no apology that I read of, anyway.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Thanks for the clarification

Porfirio,

The appellate laws still allow appeals even after a decision is reached in the highest court of the land. There are provisions in common law and in the Court Judicature Act for such a process.

Generally, when a decision that is made was based on flawed representations, (as in this case defence counsel had acknowledged having misled the court), that would manifestly diminish the dispensation of justice, the AG can and should appeal that decision and tender evidence to that effect.

The rule of thumb is that when sentencing is manifestly inadequate the AG may seek to have that sentence re-evaluated. This is wholly appropriate in this case where the mandatory jail sentence was a mere day when in practice it should be up to 2 years.

This gross inadequacy and inconsistency, no matter how hard the Justices try to say that is a one off thing and should not be used as precedent, shows that they recognise their own failure and have done nothing to rectify it or act pro-actively so that justice is indeed done.

I'm not sure but many are saying because of her connections the AG will not be looking into it any further.

Cheers,

MentisMortis

 

[banova888]

CB keling,

why dun you make that % higher by fucking off back to your slums in india:oIo::oIo::oIo:

u can have all the cow dung, cow urine back there:oIo::oIo:

Stupid Chink! your forefathers were professional shit carriers when they came here. They came here because they could not compete with the cut throat shit carrying business in China. Singapore is China. Understand Shit Carrying CHINK! Before you ask minorities to fuck off from Singapore, you fuck off to China and help your family re-establish the shit carrying trade in China.

 

[banova888]

I really need to give into ah neh on this, why is all ah neh lawyers so damn good?! Even our law minister/Ex-law minister are Ah neh!

Are they good with words or its becos of the Prata they eat... flip here n there.

The real art of flipping starts from HDB's racial quota. NUS has a similar racial quota on those studying Law.

 

[yellow_people]

The real art of flipping starts from HDB's racial quota. NUS has a similar racial quota on those studying Law.

Chinks have forked tongue. They will tell you racial quota against fellow Singaporeans is good for you but at the same time whine about FTs taking away their jobs. Not that they weren't replaceable.

 

[Angelo]

Chinks have forked tongue. They will tell you racial quota against fellow Singaporeans is good for you but at the same time whine about FTs taking away their jobs. Not that they weren't replaceable.

LOL.

U try to twist words again. little keling. Forked tounge is a trait which belongs to you Kelings, exclusively. So by shaking head, u mean a No or a Yes?

hahahahhaa.

 

[Angelo]

The real art of flipping starts from HDB's racial quota. NUS has a similar racial quota on those studying Law.

Hi Keling. U live in a cowshed back home remember? And u eat cow-pie for breakfast.

 

[scroobal]

I do hope that someone sane in govt steps in. Even if she does not have to face the court, the Govt needs to address this anomaly ( I say this lightly) as it politically damaging as well.

A really sad case.

Porfirio,

The appellate laws still allow appeals even after a decision is reached in the highest court of the land. There are provisions in common law and in the Court Judicature Act for such a process.

Generally, when a decision that is made was based on flawed representations, (as in this case defence counsel had acknowledged having misled the court), that would manifestly diminish the dispensation of justice, the AG can and should appeal that decision and tender evidence to that effect.

The rule of thumb is that when sentencing is manifestly inadequate the AG may seek to have that sentence re-evaluated. This is wholly appropriate in this case where the mandatory jail sentence was a mere day when in practice it should be up to 2 years.

This gross inadequacy and inconsistency, no matter how hard the Justices try to say that is a one off thing and should not be used as precedent, shows that they recognise their own failure and have done nothing to rectify it or act pro-actively so that justice is indeed done.

I'm not sure but many are saying because of her connections the AG will not be looking into it any further.

Cheers,

MentisMortis

 

[SIFU]

Stupid Chink! your forefathers were professional shit carriers when they came here. They came here because they could not compete with the cut throat shit carrying business in China. Singapore is China. Understand Shit Carrying CHINK! Before you ask minorities to fuck off from Singapore, you fuck off to China and help your family re-establish the shit carrying trade in China.

chinese carry shit.. ah nehs eat them..

thank u for admitting:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[Nice-Gook]

<style></style>This case will be long remembered.Its gonna be politically very damaging.Never in my life had I seen a worst case of injustice.

I for one don not believe in taking an eye for an eye.But a woman is killed.If the driver is on a hand phone at that material time.It tantamount to manslaughter.Apart from the fact the driver goes scott free since 1 day jail simply translates to going home after 5PM from the court .And not even smelling the jail itself.

How will the victim's family feels?Or any innocent sinkie whose life is taken away for no fault of their own.What is the message sinkie's court is sending now?That if you scold a PAP MP you are liable for at least six months behind bars.And if a person wears a T shirt depicting a kangaroo in front of any justice nothing less than 14 days jail term.But if a politically connected editor kills a person accident or otherwise she practically go Scott free.

"That's disgusting."

 

[sunny302]

A case of "Double Standard"

 

[Papsmearer]

<style></style>This case will be long remembered.Its gonna be politically very damaging.Never in my life had I seen a worst case of injustice.

I for one don not believe in taking an eye for an eye.But a woman is killed.If the driver is on a hand phone at that material time.It tantamount to manslaughter.Apart from the fact the driver goes scott free since 1 day jail simply translates to going home after 5PM from the court .And not even smelling the jail itself.

How will the victim's family feels?Or any innocent sinkie whose life is taken away for no fault of their own.What is the message sinkie's court is sending now?That if you scold a PAP MP you are liable for at least six months behind bars.And if a person wears a T shirt depicting a kangaroo in front of any justice nothing less than 14 days jail term.But if a politically connected editor kills a person accident or otherwise she practically go Scott free.

"That's disgusting."

its "Uniquely Singapore"