Public perception counts, too
subhas anandan
I REFER to the letter “All are equal in eyes of the law” (Dec 18), from Ms Chong Wan Yieng of the Ministry of Law.
.
My article in the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) newsletter (Pro Bono) regarding the composition of offences was raised by the Attorney-General (AG) Professor Walter Woon when he delivered the inaugural ACLS annual lecture on Dec 11. The AG dealt with my concerns to an extent when he explained that the Attorney-General’sChambers (AGC) is privy to confidential pieces of information which are not meant for circulation in public. The AG explained that certain cases, which would normally see objections being raised when composition is considered, are not objected to as a result of this confidential information. The AGC is an institution of integrity. And if the AGC tells me they have such information, I will accept it as such.
.
The issues I raised in Pro Bono were based on concrete examples as reported in the press, including Today. They were not erroneous examples. It is true that the company director in the road rage case did not have his matter compounded and is an example of the application of the general rule. However, this example was intended to show how the accused was eventually sentenced to a fine of $1000 and how the victim in that case was deprived of the composition sum.
.
It is also vital to note that valuable court time was wasted on a simple case which possessed some public interest aspects. Would not the public have been better served with the victim being compensated and the Courts being freed up to deal with more important cases? I support composition for cases which will save the Court time and give meaning to the victims’ wishes to settle matters and move on with their lives.
.
Further, if Ms Chong had examined my article fully, it was quite clear that other cases with similar public interest aspects saw noobjections raised to composition. Air-rage cases, doctor-patient molest cases, which do have a public interest element, were withdrawn. I further accept that the AGC hasreasons which it cannot disclose. But, as a result of the publicity surrounding such cases, it is important for the public to know why the public interest was seemingly overlooked. Some lawyers may know the reasons but the public in general probably does not. The AG is the people’s lawyer and he duly explained the reasons for not objecting to the withdrawal of these charges at the ACLS lecture.
.
It is surprising that Ms Chong completely missed the point of my article. I am well aware of the fact that the AG has constraints in the exercise of his discretion. Further, it isaccepted that the isolated cases which I raised are examples of the exceptions to the general rule to composition. However, to say that I was misleading is absolutely wrong. By her own admission, Ms Chong agreed that there are isolated cases which buck the trend. The precise point is that these isolated cases give rise to the unfavourable and unfortunate perception that there is a different law for some. The expressed intention of my article was to state the facts and invite a response.
.
The AG dealt with my queries fairly during the ACLS lecture and I believe all considered the matter closed. But then the Ministry of Law chose to write its letter lambasting the asking of questions of public interest, to which the AG had already given the necessary response. Therefore, I have to respond.
.
Moving on, much has been made of how the Judge will listen to arguments for and against composition before deciding if composition is to be allowed. The Courts have overruled the objections of the Deputy Public Prosecutors from time to time. However, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code would see full discretion vested in the office of the AG. This would see the AG being granted the authority previously held by the Courts and it could see the AG making decisions based on evidence which might not normally be admissible in a Court. Further, it would also mean that the accused who gets his composition application blocked would have no right of appeal. The ACLS will give its feedback on this and the other proposals soon.
.
Finally, to address Ms Chong’s last point: Judges and lawyers value courtesy and punctuality. Any suggestion otherwise is obviously limited to isolated individuals. However, we once again see that the isolated cases give rise to unfavourable perceptions. That said, I understand that there are changes currently being contemplated to streamline the system in order to reduce waiting times. I have no doubt that the ACLS and the criminal Bar will give these new measures full support.
