Re: Why r Poodles charging bus driver when govt says it was Ah Neh's own damned fault
The reason is simple. To diffuse public tension, the AG under pressure from his political masters did as he was told. Or to put it somewhat narcissistically, the Stinky Smelly AG did not read or could not understand the article which I wrote for and was published in TRE sometime in 2012. I note that a few months and a few forced weekend press releases later, the AG's Chambers finally published a set of guidelines on prosecutorial decisions. However, those so-called guidelines are so broad and full of motherhood statements as to be practically useless, a far cry from the examples I had given.
Here's the article:
The Woffles Wu Saga Continues: Prosecutorial Discretion - Absolute or to be Exercised on BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC?
Let’s turn to the right questions to ask with regards to the role of the Attorney General’s Chamber (“AGC”) in this saga. I would like to get it out of the way that I am not implying or suggesting any impropriety has occurred. Far from it, I am only suggesting that DISCLOSURE of relevant facts and circumstances will dispel any PERCEPTIONS to the contrary and serve as a guide to the conduct of future prosecutions. We all learn from our mistakes. It is part and parcel of getting from THIRD WORLD to FIRST WORLD in anything.
Attorney General’s True Role in the Westminster Model Singapore Inherited
In 1951, Sir Hartley Shawcross KC, Attorney General (“AG”) of England and Wales, told the House of Commons that:
“I think the true doctrine is that
it is the duty of an AG, in deciding whether or not to authorise a prosecution, to acquaint himself with all the relevant facts, including for instance the effect which the prosecution, successful or unsuccessful as the case may be, would have upon public morale and order, and with any other considerations affecting public policy. In order so to inform himself, he may, although I do not think he is obliged to, consult with any of his colleagues in the Government, and indeed, as Lord Simon once said, he would in some cases be a fool if he did not.
On the other hand the assistance of his colleagues is confined to informing him of particular considerations which might affect his own decision and does not consist, and must not consist, in telling him what that decision ought to be.
The responsibility for the eventual decision rests with the AG and he is not to be put under pressure by his colleagues in the matter. Nor of course can the AG shift his responsibility for making the decision onto the shoulders of his colleagues. If political considerations, which in the broad sense that I have indicated affect government in the abstract, arise, it is the AG, applying his judicial mind, who has to be the sole judge of those considerations .....”
Swiss standard of living? Intangible as well as Tangible Please
The AGC’s website does not contain any information with regards to the principles and guidelines on how prosecutorial discretion will be exercised. Fortunately, we are in the Internet Age and other common law jurisdictions actually publish these guidelines IN FULL on the web in the interest of transparency and fairness. We aspire not just to Swiss standards of material living but to similar standards in terms of intangible goods such as transparency and rule of law.
The Code for Crown Prosecutors (at
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2010english.pdf) is required to be issued and regularly updated under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (UK). The Code gives “guidance to prosecutors on the general principles to be applied when making decisions about prosecutions” and they are now into their 6th edition. Do we have any such guidelines in Singapore? If yes, please don’t keep them locked up, bring them out and share it with the public and show us how such guidelines have been scrupulously followed in the instant case. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service has also issued Core Quality Standards for its prosecutors to abide by, please see
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/core_quality_standards/core_quality_standards.pdf . The Code is even available in Bengali, Punjabi, Chinese, Welsh, French, Polish (lots of them work as waiters and plumbers here), etc but let’s not raise the bar too high for our civil servants.
In this saga, the public seems to be very concerned and puzzled as to why the PP decided to proceed under the Road Traffic Act instead of some other more serious provisions and below is an excerpt from the Code on this topic:
“Selection of Charges
6.1 Prosecutors should select charges which:
a) reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending supported by the evidence;
b) give the court adequate powers to sentence and impose appropriate post-conviction orders; and
c) enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way.”
Could the AGC please explain how their decision would fit into the UK guidelines as set out above or their own (as yet unpublished) standards (if any).
A Tale of Two Cities
It is no secret that the member for Tanjong Pagar admires Hong Kong people for their can-do spirit. Now, let’s see what the standards for prosecutorial discretion are in the Fragrant Harbour.
As usual, transparency is very high. Hong Kong people expect nothing less and are prepared to fight for it – Singaporeans are not stupid, but …. The Department of Justice publishes its “Statement of Prosecution Policy and Practice” IN FULL at
http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/pubsoppapcon.htm#31 . This part of the introduction is very inspiring and readers can judge for themselves how our own AGC measure up to these noble aspirations, not just in the Woffles Wu case, but in general:
“At court, the prosecutor represents the Hong Kong SAR, not the government or the law enforcement agency. The prosecutor is as independent as the judge, and his or her interest throughout is the just disposal of the issues joined. Rightly has it been said that the prosecutor secures no victories and sustains no defeats. This does not mean that the prosecutor should not firmly present the prosecution case, or use forensic skills to test the defence case. The prosecutor should be vigorous in presenting the evidence, but restrained and courteous. Evidence should be properly marshalled and cogently adduced. Without a fair prosecutor, there cannot be a fair trial. He or she may strike hard blows, provided they are not foul ones. The community has a vested interest in the proper conduct of its prosecutions, and the conviction of the guilty is just as much in the public interest as is the acquittal of the innocent.
It has never been the position that those suspected of criminal offences must automatically be prosecuted. A charge is only ever appropriate if it is in the public interest to bring it. In deciding where exactly the public interest lies in a particular case the prosecutor must consider the justice of the situation and examine all the factors. These vary from case to case and the application of the prosecution discretion is not an exact science. The prosecutor does not operate as a rubber stamp, and it would not be right to prosecute every case without regard to the interests of justice. In general, the more serious the offence, the more likely is it that the public interest will require a prosecution to proceed.
The prosecutor is guided at all times by the public interest in the measured application of the rule of law.
The prosecutor exercises an important discretion on behalf of the public of whether or not to institute a prosecution of a suspect, and how to conduct a prosecution once it has begun.
There is a need to maintain public confidence in the administration of criminal justice, and the community has a legitimate interest in the work of its prosecution service. The purpose of The Statement of Prosecution Policy and Practice is therefore not only to provide a code of conduct for prosecutors and to promote fair and consistent decision making at all stages of the prosecution process, but also to make the community aware of the way in which the system of public prosecutions operates. Principled criteria are applicable at all times, and the people of Hong Kong need to be able to see for themselves what exactly these are. Transparency is essential for the modern prosecutor.”
The key takeaways are:
1) The PP exercises an important discretion ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC.
2) Without a fair prosecutor, there cannot be a fair trial.
3) Principled criteria are applicable at all times, and the people of Singapore need to be able TO SEE FOR THEMSELVES what exactly these are.
So what exactly are the principled criteria which the AGC applied in the conduct of this case from start to finish? If these are reasonable and disclosed, the public disquiet will naturally disappear. We keep an open mind and have confidence in the AGC’s ability to rise up to the challenge. Please do not disappoint us.
As far as charging practice is concerned, Section 13.1 of their Practice states:
“13.1 There must be available admissible evidence which supports all the ingredients of the offence charged. The prosecutor will exercise his or her discretion on the choice of charge on the basis of the following principles:
a. Every effort should be made to keep the number of charges as low as possible. A multiplicity of charges imposes an unnecessary burden on the administration of the courts as well as upon the prosecution, and often tends to obscure the essential features of the case. ……... Where numerous different types of offence are disclosed, the ability to present the case in a clear, simple manner should remain a key objective;
b. The charges laid should adequately reflect the gravity of the accused’s conduct. In the ordinary course the charge or charges laid or proceeded with will be the most serious disclosed by the evidence. Nevertheless, when account is taken of such matters as the strength of the available evidence, and the probable lines of defence to a particular charge, it may be appropriate to lay or proceed with a charge which is not the most serious revealed by the evidence;
c. In many cases the evidence will disclose an offence against several different laws. Care must therefore be taken to choose a charge or charges which adequately reflect the nature and extent of the criminal conduct disclosed by the evidence and which will provide the court with an appropriate basis for sentence.”
So how does our AGC’s decision making process measure up against these exacting but FIRST WORLD standards? Not just in this case, but in general.
MPs of the Workers’ Party who are also lawyers, can we expect you to raise these questions in Parliament? Once raised, it will be in the Hansard. Though the legislative and judiciary arms be separate and independent, surely, the judges of the High Court (where the revisionary power is vested) will keep themselves abreast of what is going on in Parliament and take judicial notice of the public disquiet?
FIRST WORLD is not only just in terms of GDP but we aspire to FIRST WORLD Parliament, Judiciary, Prosecutorial SERVICE on BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, the list goes on … Of course, being Singaporeans, we want our monies’ worth, high pay means high standards in terms of performance, which does not necessarily have to be achieved instantly for “Rome was not built in a day”, but we want to see genuine and credible efforts in this direction.
RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY
Readers are encouraged to go to the links provided in this article and see for themselves how truly FIRST WORLD jurisdictions have principles, criteria and standards to guide the prosecutorial discretion exercised on behalf of their public.
