Judge disallows questions on CASE protest
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
Singapore Democrats
District Judge Chia Wee Kiat disllowed the defence to submit video evidence showing a protest and march by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).
The Judge also refused to allow the defence to adduce evidence that would show bad faith on the part of the police in rejecting the application made by Dr Chee Soon Juan for the protest on 15 Mar 08.
This took place in court today in the on-going trial of 16 Tak Boleh Tahan (cannot take it) protesters who are charged with taking part in an assembly and a procession without a permit.
Yesterday when Dr Chee Soon Juan cross-examined licensing office Mr Yeo Kok Leong on the stand, the Judge and DPP questioned the relevance of Dr Chee's cross-examination. (See here)
The SDP leader then cited case after case where no less than nine Law Lords in England repeatedly and emphatically ruled that courts hearing criminal cases have a duty to uphold justice by allowing defendants to challenge public bodies such as the police on their decisions in order to show mala fide (bad faith) by the authorities. (See below)
Despite all these case laws presented to him, Judge Chia ruled that the questions were not allowed.
The TBT defendants are trying to show that the policy of the police to ban all outdoor political activities is ultra vires the Constitution.
Dr Chee explained that the evidence needed to be adduced and the Judge can then decide based on the evidence whether the policy is unlawful vis-a-vis the Constitution. He also explained that it was important to show that the police had discriminated against the TBT in favour of CASE and therefore had acted in bad faith.
But the Judge adamantly refused to allow the questions.
"Your Honour, I cling to those words by Lord Irvine that if a law or policy is ultra vires of the Constitution then no citizen should be convicted and punished on the basis of it," Dr Chee pleaded.
"You will agree with me that in the Boddington case, the House of Lords did not just mention in passing but indeed placed great emphasis on the fact that justice must be done in any court and that under the common law, of which Singapore is part, convicting citizens by not allowing them to challenge the validity of executive policy is clearly unacceptable.
"My fellow co-defendants and I, are not criminals. Just like anyone else in this court room, we are law-abiding citizens. But being a law-abiding citizen does not mean we follow the law blindly.
"Being law abiding also means respecting the rule of law and abiding by our Constitution. I urge you to reconsider your decision."
"Mr ruling stands," Judge Chia replied
.
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
Singapore Democrats
District Judge Chia Wee Kiat disllowed the defence to submit video evidence showing a protest and march by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).
The Judge also refused to allow the defence to adduce evidence that would show bad faith on the part of the police in rejecting the application made by Dr Chee Soon Juan for the protest on 15 Mar 08.
This took place in court today in the on-going trial of 16 Tak Boleh Tahan (cannot take it) protesters who are charged with taking part in an assembly and a procession without a permit.
Yesterday when Dr Chee Soon Juan cross-examined licensing office Mr Yeo Kok Leong on the stand, the Judge and DPP questioned the relevance of Dr Chee's cross-examination. (See here)
The SDP leader then cited case after case where no less than nine Law Lords in England repeatedly and emphatically ruled that courts hearing criminal cases have a duty to uphold justice by allowing defendants to challenge public bodies such as the police on their decisions in order to show mala fide (bad faith) by the authorities. (See below)
Despite all these case laws presented to him, Judge Chia ruled that the questions were not allowed.
The TBT defendants are trying to show that the policy of the police to ban all outdoor political activities is ultra vires the Constitution.
Dr Chee explained that the evidence needed to be adduced and the Judge can then decide based on the evidence whether the policy is unlawful vis-a-vis the Constitution. He also explained that it was important to show that the police had discriminated against the TBT in favour of CASE and therefore had acted in bad faith.
But the Judge adamantly refused to allow the questions.
"Your Honour, I cling to those words by Lord Irvine that if a law or policy is ultra vires of the Constitution then no citizen should be convicted and punished on the basis of it," Dr Chee pleaded.
"You will agree with me that in the Boddington case, the House of Lords did not just mention in passing but indeed placed great emphasis on the fact that justice must be done in any court and that under the common law, of which Singapore is part, convicting citizens by not allowing them to challenge the validity of executive policy is clearly unacceptable.
"My fellow co-defendants and I, are not criminals. Just like anyone else in this court room, we are law-abiding citizens. But being a law-abiding citizen does not mean we follow the law blindly.
"Being law abiding also means respecting the rule of law and abiding by our Constitution. I urge you to reconsider your decision."
"Mr ruling stands," Judge Chia replied
.
:p
