- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - J Choo’s judgement on SDP bewildering!</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt_89 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>May-6 7:37 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 7) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>32775.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Netizens find Justice Choo’s judgement on the SDP 5, bewildering
May 7th, 2010 |
Author: Contributor
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/05/07/netizens-find-justice-choos-judgement-on-the-sdp-5-bewildering/
Justice Choo, in convicting the SDP 5, reversing the earlier acquittal of the accused by District Judge John Ng was reported in MSM to have said this.
“The five also knew a permit was required for the 2007 event….. As to whether an event may cause public disorder, it was for the police to assess, not the organisers.”
THIS IS VERY BEWILDERING TO MY MIND.
The question is how do the Police able to assess public disorder risk of an event YET-TO-OCCUR when EVEN after the arrest of the 5 accused, nothing happened? The lack of public disorder, AFTER THE ARREST, is a question of material factual truth, so the Police judgment of arrest, IN HINDSIGHT BENEFIT OF INFORMATION, must be KNOWINGLY wrong – logically thinking. Then why they still charged the 5 in the first place instead of a caution??
Was it for public disorder – proven false since nothing adverse happened – or was it for “procession” which is in Justice Choo determination “long defied exact legal definition” i.e. a legal fiction for law enforcement by the Police. In other words, the Police cannot possibly arrest, charge someone for a fictional offence of no legal truth of substance or definition i.e. nobody can be arrested for the murder of Bill Clinton in Singapore when Bill Clinton lives in USA and is alive and well.
The Police is NOT the law and neither, as public servant of the State should decide the law outcome of offence or otherwise. Do anybody disagree with my logic??
The law should be exclusively determined only in the court-room, shouldn’t it??? Justice Choo explained the “legislative intent” of local law in his judgment BUT DOES THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT of Parliament also says the Police is to decide the law offence as well?? Even a bloody physical violent assault on the street is non-siezable offence of law at Police discretion, how come they could arrest anyone for imagined offence much less IF THAT IS WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDED OF LIMITED POLICE POWERS??
It appears to be a HUGE CONTRADICTION OF “LEGISLATIVE INTENT” ARGUMENT.
If it is not the Parliament’s legislative intent to let the Police judge the law, then a police permit for any procession, however, defined or incapable of definition, is not necessary. Law are never any common law jurisdictions, decided by the Police. If it is otherwise, why do we need the courts and judges?? If the Police has no law-making or law interpreting power of “convicting” an arrest outside the rule of law inside the courtroom, why is a permit necessary??? And if the Police HAS power of law-making and law determination, why do we need the courts to enforce the law and Parliament to make those laws??
A rational mind would argue that the Police cannot be legally the prosecutor and judge OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM in any matters of criminal law determinations but maybe assisting the prosecution INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCE OR OTHERWISE.
Anyone got any interesting angle to explain this quirky part of law on procession arrest, charge and conviction – BESIDES THE LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF DEFINITION OF PROCESSION ADMITTED BY JUSTICE CHOO??
IT IS VERY CONFUSING INDEED WHY A PERMIT IS NEEDED ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE SHOULD BE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AT LAW.
Jane
Caveat emptor: I am not a Lawyer.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/05/07/netizens-find-justice-choos-judgement-on-the-sdp-5-bewildering/
Justice Choo, in convicting the SDP 5, reversing the earlier acquittal of the accused by District Judge John Ng was reported in MSM to have said this.
“The five also knew a permit was required for the 2007 event….. As to whether an event may cause public disorder, it was for the police to assess, not the organisers.”
THIS IS VERY BEWILDERING TO MY MIND.
The question is how do the Police able to assess public disorder risk of an event YET-TO-OCCUR when EVEN after the arrest of the 5 accused, nothing happened? The lack of public disorder, AFTER THE ARREST, is a question of material factual truth, so the Police judgment of arrest, IN HINDSIGHT BENEFIT OF INFORMATION, must be KNOWINGLY wrong – logically thinking. Then why they still charged the 5 in the first place instead of a caution??
Was it for public disorder – proven false since nothing adverse happened – or was it for “procession” which is in Justice Choo determination “long defied exact legal definition” i.e. a legal fiction for law enforcement by the Police. In other words, the Police cannot possibly arrest, charge someone for a fictional offence of no legal truth of substance or definition i.e. nobody can be arrested for the murder of Bill Clinton in Singapore when Bill Clinton lives in USA and is alive and well.
The Police is NOT the law and neither, as public servant of the State should decide the law outcome of offence or otherwise. Do anybody disagree with my logic??
The law should be exclusively determined only in the court-room, shouldn’t it??? Justice Choo explained the “legislative intent” of local law in his judgment BUT DOES THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT of Parliament also says the Police is to decide the law offence as well?? Even a bloody physical violent assault on the street is non-siezable offence of law at Police discretion, how come they could arrest anyone for imagined offence much less IF THAT IS WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDED OF LIMITED POLICE POWERS??
It appears to be a HUGE CONTRADICTION OF “LEGISLATIVE INTENT” ARGUMENT.
If it is not the Parliament’s legislative intent to let the Police judge the law, then a police permit for any procession, however, defined or incapable of definition, is not necessary. Law are never any common law jurisdictions, decided by the Police. If it is otherwise, why do we need the courts and judges?? If the Police has no law-making or law interpreting power of “convicting” an arrest outside the rule of law inside the courtroom, why is a permit necessary??? And if the Police HAS power of law-making and law determination, why do we need the courts to enforce the law and Parliament to make those laws??
A rational mind would argue that the Police cannot be legally the prosecutor and judge OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM in any matters of criminal law determinations but maybe assisting the prosecution INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCE OR OTHERWISE.
Anyone got any interesting angle to explain this quirky part of law on procession arrest, charge and conviction – BESIDES THE LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF DEFINITION OF PROCESSION ADMITTED BY JUSTICE CHOO??
IT IS VERY CONFUSING INDEED WHY A PERMIT IS NEEDED ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE SHOULD BE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AT LAW.
Jane
Caveat emptor: I am not a Lawyer.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
___________
[/SIZE]
___________What is it that you donch understand, Peasant? *hee*hee*[/SIZE]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
___________What is it that you donch understand, Peasant? *hee*hee*[/SIZE]
