More bull from Law Minister Shanmu – AG does not have to give reason for charges

Some time back, I wrote and challenged the idea that prosecutorial discretion belongs to the AG/PP. [AG's explanation on Ramalingam's case unconvincing] The case is about two different charges were made against two different people for the same one crime. Central to the issue is that the AG does not have to explain why the different charges.

In the above case cited, one of the two men charged was eventually sentenced to hang, while the other had his charge reduced and he hence escaped the gallows. The above case appears to open the door for Yong Vui Kong, the most publicised condemned drug trafficker in Singapore today, for the possibility to have a retrial to have his charge reduced to a non-capital crime.

The core problem appears to be that anti-Death Penalty campaigners are not willing to take that route and cite the above case (Ramalingam) to cement their idea that PP has final say as to what the charge against Vui Kong should be. My argument is that prior to Vui Kong’s trial, the pre-trial judge had already given VK a leg up, suggesting that VK be tried with a non-capital crime. PP rejected and the then counsel didn’t contest.

However, if VK’s current counsel were to contest PP’s opinion that VK be charged with a capital crime instead of a lower crime as suggested by the pre-trial judge, VK may have a chance to live.

I don’t buy the Law Minister’s or AG’s explanation, much less anti-Death Penalty Campaigners’ explanation, that AG/PP has the final say as to what the charge may be filed against the accused. I can’t find anything that’s in our Constitution or Statute Laws that states AG/PP has the final say. The opinion that AG has the final say is just that – an opinion.

To prove my point, here’s Law Minister’s Shanmugam’s own words. Irony is that in trying to argue that AG/PP has final say, he has exposed that they don’t have it.

Why AG does not have to give reasons for charges
(You need to be an ST Online subscriber to read the article on ST’s website)

Published on Mar 7, 2012

PROSECUTORS have a right to decide which charge to go after in trying to get a conviction and they should not have to explain their reasons because that might compromise the case.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam made this point to the House yesterday when the subject of prosecutorial discretion was raised by Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC).

Mr Singh had said that the Attorney-General, as the state prosecutor, ought to explain the reasons for charging two accused persons involved in the same capital offence with two different charges.

‘Taking public interest into account, would not disclosure engender greater trust in the legal system and the office of the AG?’ asked the opposition MP.

His question was prompted by the recent Court of Appeal case of Ramalingam Ravinthran who was charged and convicted for a capital offence while a second man accused in the same case faced a non-capital charge.

The case had prompted a debate on prosecutorial discretion.

Yesterday, Mr Shanmugam made it clear that the Court of Appeal itself had held ‘that differentiation between offenders of equal guilt’ can be held for many reasons.

He pointed out the court itself had noted ‘that prosecutorial power constitutionally is co-equal to the judicial power, and the Court should be slow to interfere with its exercise’.

On how prosecutorial discretion shaped the criminal justice system that prevailed, he said: ‘We want a system where the guilty are convicted, the innocent are acquitted and the wider interest of society is protected, which includes a protection of society from those who could cause it harm.’

He said that if it was clear that public disclosure by the Attorney-General on his reasons for differential treatment of offenders would improve the judicial system, it would be a ‘no-brainer’ for the law to be changed.

But reality was not so clear and there had to be trade-offs.

‘If the reasons for the underlying prosecutorial decisions are revealed, it can compromise the intelligence, confidential sources that inform such decisions.’

He said that there would be criminals who would work ‘around the guidelines and game the system’ as that was human nature.

The trade-offs lay in deciding between the risks of the prosecution acting wrongly, compared to the risks of the compromise of intelligence and all other attendant risks if disclosure was made.

‘The prosecution acting wrongly or maliciously is the lesser of the two risks,’ he said.

He noted that the AG’s Chambers had internal guidelines, several layers of review and in capital cases the Attorney-General reviewed the facts himself.

The court was also an additional safeguard in that if prosecutorial discretion is untenable on the face of it, it must be explained or else the court would infer no good reason for it.

‘So you have all these layers of checks and within this framework, we believe that a system where the Attorney-General exercises his discretion, without having to make those reasons public, is better for society. If we are convinced of the opposite, I say to Members unhesitatingly, we will change the law.’

K. C. VIJAYAN

So the idea that AG has prosecutorial discretion is just an opinion and nothing else. It is not enshrined in the constitution or any statute. That being the case, this now opens the door even wider to have Yong Vui Kong saved.

I have argued before that VK could ask for a retrial, based on the fact that he was not given a fair one, when PP rejected the pre-trial judge’s recommendation to have VK tried with a non-capital crime. Here is that article – Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

Again, central to the issue is whether PP has final say as to what charge may be filed against the accused. However, if one were to look at the Law Minister’s explanation, he did not cite any part of the Constitution or any statute to back his claim that AG has final say. All he gave is opinions of the courts. So if it is just opinion, why can’t anti-Death Penalty campaigners who have worked on VK’s case now contest that opinion? Isn’t this easier than contesting the Death Penalty itself?

My points in summary and conclusion -

1. Mr Shanmugam, in his eagerness to settle the disquiet on what appears to be flimsy decision type of charges filed against criminals for the same one crime, shows that AG truly does not have the right to decide when he (Shanmu) did not cite any part of the Constitution or any statute. Instead, he has shown the world that is just a flimsy suka suka opinion.

2. Anti-death Campaigners who have been working on Vui Kong’s case for years should now seize this opportunity and contest the suka suka opinion that AG/PP has the last say. Then use this as a platform to re-open VK’s case that he was not given a fair trial, when the PP did not take up the suggestion from the pre-trial judge that VK be tried with a non-capital crime.

If anti-Death Penalty campaigners are serious about saving Vui Kong’s life, they should try to at least contest the opinion that AG/PP has final say. That surely is easier than contesting the Death Penalty itself. Unless of course VK’s life is just secondary and he is just used as a pawn to achieve their main plan to have Death Penalty abolished.

Lawyers’ Association (ACLS), Lapdog of PAPpy

Like the NTUC that laps up, drools and barks supportingly on every issue PAPpy’s govt arm does on Labour issues, the ACLS does the same for every issue PAPpy’s govt arm does on Criminal/Legal issues.

Lawyers’ association explains stand on AGC’s discretion

THE Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) supports the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran versus Attorney-General (‘Apex court clears air on A-G’s power’; Jan 11), both on principle and on authority.

ACLS believes that given the nature and width of the prosecutorial discretion vested in the Attorney-General by Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the view that the Attorney-General should explain how he exercises his discretion is misplaced.

There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. That element of trust is institutionalised in the Constitution of Singapore. Without such faith and trust, the legal system in our country will not work effectively and efficiently.

While ACLS would defend and protect the rights of all accused persons as it should, it also recognises that the protection of the innocent should be of paramount importance in the criminal justice system.

Our criminal justice system has numerous forms of checks and balances to ensure that no one person has unfettered discretion. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion involves numerous layers of internal review. There would be no end to matters if every single decision is questioned excessively. However, it is clear that meritorious cases will be reviewed by the court should the need arise.

The fact remains that it is Parliament which needs to legislate such change if the people demand change. In the meantime, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) must continue to carry out its duties pursuant to the Constitution. ACLS trusts in this.

Subhas Anandan
President
Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore

Isn’t the issue that the public needs to know the details as how it is decided the Prosecution decides what charge is to be made against the accused that is the core point? And the Lawyers’ Association supports the idea that everyone should just trust the system? Hellooo?

For those who want a quick background on the case, this is about how one man, Ramalingam Ravinthran, was charged with a capital crime, while his co-accused, had a non-capital crime charged against him. Both men committed the same crime. There lies the issue. Ramalingam’s defence asks why was his charge not lowered too.

Related links here:
Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

AG’s explanation on Ramalingam’s case unconvincing

Isn’t the real issue about the Mandatory Death Sentence, which AGC is grappling with? -

You don’t need to be a legal expert to sense that this double standard, where two men are charged differently for the same crime, is due to the fact that the Prosecution was trying hard to allow Ramalingam’s co-accused to escape the Mandatory Death Sentence. You see, the co-accused has an IQ of only 68.

There lies the problem of the Mandatory Death Sentence for Drug Trafficking. I am against the Mandatory Death Sentence. This is not to be confused with the Death Sentence itself.

If the co-accused is charged with a capital crime like Ramalingam, and if he is found guilty, he would be hanged to death. That’s because hanging is mandatory. So in all probability, in order not to have him hanged, the co-accused had his charge reduced.

But this of course triggers the question why was Ramalingim’s charge not reduced, when both committed same crime.

Many side issues on the Ramalingam case -

There are many side issues in this unique case. In summary they are:

1. The prerogative of the Prosecution to decide what charge, and more importantly, its non obligation to tell the public or even the defence, why it is decided on that charge, does not bode well for the work towards transparency. The AGC talks as if the prosecutional authority is his god-given right.

2. The ACLS has shown itself, like the NTUC, to be nothing more than a lapdog of the govt. It shows it is not an institution to protect the rights of citizens.

3. The Singapore Govt, in this case the Judiciary, is showing the world it rather worms its way out of the controversial Mandatory Death Sentence, than addressing the issue itself.

4. Most importantly, I feel the anti-Death Penalty campaigners goofed this one big time, contesting Ramalingam’s charge by questioning its legality citing the Constitution. The govt will NEVER touch the constitution. What the lobbyists should have done was to argue Ramalingam’s case on its own merits and ask for a reduced charge. By citing the constitution, the Courts simply hardened their stand.

My Final Word -

If not for the tragedy that Ramalingam would be hanged, all this certainly looks like one big circus with the govt, NGOs and some anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists performing for the world to see their comical act.

Why all this loopy explanation and act, when the issue is about transparency and the right for the public to know how the Prosecution comes to the decision on what the charge should be?

AG’s explanation on Ramalingam’s case unconvincing

Ramalingam has been charged with a capital crime for drug trafficking. His co-accused was charged for a crime that does not warrant the Death Penalty. Problem is both committed the same offence.

The defence for Rmalaingam argued that Rmaa should have his charge reduced to save him from the gallows. I touched a little on that here – Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

Ramalingam’s appeal was rejected. Here is the Attorney General’s explanation why it is possible for Rama and his co-founder to be charged for different charges when both committed the same crime. Central to the argument is that the AG has prosecutorial discretion. Franky, I am not convinced.

AGC: Robust reviews before discretion is exercised
(You need to be logged in as a subscriber to read the full report. Otherwise, you will only get a truncated report.)

AGC: Robust reviews before discretion is exercised
Internal guidelines exist; findings of innocence or guilt decided by courts

By K. C. Vijayan
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on Friday sought to reassure the public that its decisions to charge offenders involved in the same crime differently are done only after thorough reviews by many levels of officers.

There are internal guidelines that guide its officers and ultimately the finding of guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and not the AGC, it said in a statement.

Note that we are not told what these “internal guidelines” are.

The reassurance comes in the wake of a recent case that sparked debate on the issue of prosecutorial discretion.

What “assurance” when we are kept in the dark? Just take the AG’s word for it?

Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs in a trafficker’s charges, to differentiate them from those of his accomplice.

But the court, in a written judgment by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, stressed that the Attorney-General’s decision to prosecute can be called into question if he acted unfairly in the use of his discretion.

If no clear guidelines are made public, what is “unfair” is just subjective.

In the case, Ramalingam Ravinthran was sentenced to death for trafficking in cannabis, while his accomplice was jailed for 20 years and given 24 strokes of the cane.

Ramalingam had filed a motion to question if the Attorney-General had deprived him of his right to fair treatment and sought to have his charges amended.

Several lawyers, academics and human rights group Maruah had commented on the case, asking the AGC to be more transparent in its decisions to prosecute.

In its statement on Friday, the AGC explained why it might not be appropriate to do so for many reasons, from constitutional right to efficiency and public interest.

Note the usual crap why info cannot be shared to the public.

It began by noting that prosecutorial discretion is provided for in the Constitution and is a responsibility undertaken with full recognition of its impact on society.

Isn’t that just an interpretation? There is nothing in the constitution that says the reason for deciding what the charge be against the accused not be made public. In any case, there is also nothing that states that the interpretation that prosecutorial discretion of AG cannot be challenged. AG speaks as if it is his god-given right.

The public should be assured that each decision is made carefully, with full consideration of the facts and due regard to what is required in the public interest.’

The only way the public is assured is when the reasons for the different charges be made open to the public for scrutiny.

The rest of the article is just more mere rhetoric. No convincing explanation as to why the reasons cannot be made public in the name of transparency.

The AGC explained that in everyday matters, prosecutorial discretion is exercised by officers working under the close supervision of the Chief Prosecutors of the various crime divisions. In turn, they are supervised by the Solicitors-General and the Attorney-General.

The decision to charge a person is taken by at least two officers with at least one separate higher level of review in all cases.

‘In many cases, including capital cases, there are multiple levels of review including personal review by the Attorney-General.’

Among other things, the officers look at the evidence, the facts as they relate to the law, the investigations done and the public interest in charging the accused person.

Cases in which two offenders may have been caught in apparently similar circumstances but are charged differently could be due to a wide range of factors.

These include the strength of evidence, the cooperation shown by the accused and mitigating circumstances such as mental or physical weakness, which might call for a compassionate approach.

Internal guidelines exist to ensure consistency. But these guidelines are not published and the Attorney-General does not generally explain his prosecutorial decisions because in arriving at the decisions, he and his officers ‘consider a large number of often competing interests, including those of the victim, the accused person and society as a whole’.

Also, with the inevitable resource constraints, the AGC has to prioritise and it takes into account enforcement priorities, among other things.

By not publishing the guidelines, the Attorney-General is also able to be flexible when it needs to depart from them. This is critical because each case can then be scrutinised on its own merits ‘at a nuanced level, which is the cornerstone of prosecutorial discretion’, said the AGC.

Revealing the guidelines would also show which areas the prosecution is focused on and may incentivise offenders to commit crimes where they expect lesser charges.

Demand for reasons behind every decision would also delay proceedings and lead to frequent challenges by people unhappy with specific decisions, said the AGC.

It also noted that in the United States, the Supreme Court too has been reluctant to examine the basis of a prosecution as this is a function of the executive branch of the government.

This is also the case here, as provided for in the Constitution. Any shift would impair the Attorney-General’s ability to prosecute.

Noted the AGC: ‘While the Attorney-General determines who is charged and what charge is preferred, the determination of guilt or innocence, and consequently, punishment, is solely within the province of the court after it has considered the evidence and heard full arguments.’

It added that the Attorney-General’s powers were open to judicial review and correction if it is shown they were exercised wrongly or in an arbitrary manner.
‘There are clear remedies in cases where prosecutorial discretion has been exercised unlawfully or contrary to the Constitution.’

Separately, the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore said on Friday that recent calls for more transparency in the Attorney-General’s decisions were ‘misplaced’.

‘There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. Without such trust and faith the legal system will not work effectively.’

vijayan@sph.com.sg

Note how the Association of Criminal Lawyers simply lap up everything the AG says. No different from how some pro-PAPpy NGOs lap up PAPpy’s crappy stuff.

Here’s the background to the case, taken from the same link.

Case that sparked the debate

RAMALINGAM Ravinthran and his accomplice Sundar Arujunan seemed destined to face the hangman, after they were arrested in 2006 for trafficking in cannabis.

Sundar, however, escaped the gallows when he was charged with trafficking in a shade less than the quantity that draws the mandatory death penalty.

This, after the Attorney-General exercised its prosecutorial discretion and reduced the amount of drugs specified in the charges against him.

But when Ramalingam was dealt with later, the quantities of drugs in the charges against him still meant the death penalty.

Sundar pleaded guilty to the lesser charges and was sentenced to 20 years’ jail and 24 strokes of the cane.

Ramalingam, however, was convicted and put on death row.

After he had exhausted his avenues of appeal in September 2010, he filed a motion in an attempt to reopen his case.

Central to his application was that even though he and Sundar were involved in the same crime, he was prosecuted for capital offences whereas Sundar was accused of non-capital offences.

Ramalingam wanted his charges amended so there would be no difference in their punishment.

Last week, the Court of Appeal dismissed his motion in a 48-page written judgment delivered by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.

CJ Chan in his judgment, said it is not unlawful or unconstitutional, for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs specified in a trafficker’s charges, to differentiate from those of his accomplice.

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the powers of the Attorney-General to decide what charges to prefer against an accused person. It is a power that cannot be challenged except under exceptional circumstances such as when the Attorney-General has used it unfairly. The Attorney-General cannot be compelled to explain his use of discretion in deciding what offences to proceed with.

K. C. VIJAYAN

=========

Update – Lawyers’ Association (ACLS), Lapdog of PAPpy

Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

I have been following the cases anti-Death Penalty lobbyists have been campaigning. The most well-known case is of course Yong Vui Kong, who is now awaiting his execution.

In Vui Kong’s case, I argued that M Ravi (Vui Kong’s lawyer) should have contested the whole trial itself, because the trial judge recommended that Vui Kong be charged with a non-capital punishment crime. The PP refused and the then counsel (a state sponsored one) did not contest. Then when M Ravi took over from the state counsel, he too did not contest that!

I brought this issue up in some casual comments of blogs with some lobbyists. The answer given was that the PP’s decision “cannot be contested”. Personally, I don’t buy that argument. It appears to me that M Ravi didn’t even attempt to contest in Vui Kong’s case.

Now, we have another case. Another man is awaiting his death for drugs, like Vui Kong. But the difference now is that M Ravi is contesting the PP’s decision not to have the accused (Ramalingam Ravinthram) charged with a lower crime that does not warrant the Death Penalty.

So why didn’t M Ravi also contest to have Vui Kong’s charge lowered, which was recommended by the trial judge, instead of contesting the legality of the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty itself?

Background on Vui Kong’s case -

I have written a few articles about Vui Kong. Here an article published pertaining to the background for those who are not familiar.

Yong Vui Kong’s story is still murky – can those who lobby for him enlighten me?
The points in the article can be summarized in the excerpt below.

1. Why didn’t the original counsel (ie Kelvin Lim) contest the prosecution’s unwillingness to downgrade Vui Kong’s charge as suggested by the judge so that VK won’t face the Death Penalty?

2. Why doesn’t M Ravi (his current counsel) contest that Vui Kong had the chance of escaping the gallows, when the trial judge suggested a lower charge, but was rejected by the prosecution, and left unconstested by the then defence?

3. It is mentioned that Vui Kong requested his counsel (Kelvin Lim) to withdraw the appeal because he “did not want to lie”. But withdrawing an appeal would mean sure death. Why didn’t Kelvin Lim advise his client? Isn’t this an act of unprofessionalism on the part of Vui Kong’s then counsel? Is not counsel supposed to act in the best interest of the client? Yet, he allowed young Vui Kong to die without an appeal?

4. More importantly, why didn’t M Ravi highlight this, contest the whole trial itself because Vui Kong was represented by an inept and unprofessional state-assigned defence lawyer, and ask for a retrial – and this time get the charge reduced to one that does not warrant the Death Penalty, as suggested by Justice Choo?

As we know, M Ravi never took the route to contest the PP when the PP did not lower the charge to avoid the Mandatory Death Penalty, as per trial judge’s recommendation. Instead, M Ravi contested the legality of the Death Penalty itself, citing the Constitution.

At the same time, M Ravi did not contest to have a retrial even though it can be seen that the first counsel (state sponsored) was less than professional in his execution of duties.

Wouldn’t these arguments have been the easier route to save Yong Vui Kong’s life?

Now let’s take a look at Ramalingam’s case where M Ravi does contest against the PP’s decision to charge the accused which carries the Mandatory Death Sentence.

Background on Ramalingam Ravinthram’s case -

From an anti-Death Penalty campaigner. How much discretion should the Prosecution have?

The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement in the case of Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General after the appellant’s lawyer Mr M Ravi mounted a challenge to the use of prosecutorial discretion at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Mr Ravinthran was arrested alongside with a Mr Sundar Arujunan in 2006. Both were charged with drug trafficking.

However, while Mr Ravinthran was charged with the full amount of drugs (5560g of cannabis and 2078g cannabis mixture), Mr Arujunan was only charged with trafficking in 499.99g of cannabis and 999.99g of cannabis mixture, just below the thresholds for the Mandatory Death Penalty. Therefore, Mr Arujunan has received 20 years in jail with caning, while Mr Ravinthran is on death row.

“Equal before the law”

Human rights lawyer Mr Ravi argued before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Justice V K Rajah and Justice Andrew Phang that although the prosecution does have discretion in charging individuals, this discretion is limited by Article 12 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which states, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.” Thus, it is unfair for the prosecution to charge two individuals with the same offence, yet with different amounts that result in unequal sentences.

Again, note M Ravi’s tendency to cite the Constitution to argue his case against Death Penalty. Isn’t this a dead end? M Ravi’s core argument is “equality”. Why was the co-accused charged reduced, but not for Ramalingam, when both committed the very same offence?

Some may argue that in Ramalingam’s case, there is ground to argue for a lower charge because his co-accused was charged with a lower crime that does not warrant the death sentence. Hence, M Ravi argues on grounds of “equality” to have Rama’s charge lowered too.

Let’s leave aside the fact that can backfire because if equality is the issue, the PP could have raised the charge for the co-accused that warrants the Mandatory Death Penalty! Now what?

My big question is, why is the point that PP’s decision is final not contested? Isn’t it easier to contest the interpretation that the final decision belongs to PP, than to contest the Death Penalty citing the constitution?

Are we going to see another blooper made by anti-Death Penalty campaigners again, this time with Ramalingam’s life?

There is a very glaring similar point in Rama’s case with Vui Kong’s case which M Ravi and anti-Death Penalty lobbyists appear to miss totally – the judge’s compassion. Shouldn’t they have worked on it? The judges in both cases appear to disagree with the PP. Why didn’t M Ravi work on this? Excerpt continues below.

Decisions should be left to Prosecution

Public Prosecutor Ms Mavis Chionh said that although Article 12 requires equal punishment for the same level of legal guilt, it does not require equal punishment for different moral blameworthiness.

However, Justice Rajah asked how two people could be charged with different amounts despite it being the same bag of drugs, saying, “Is it proper prosecutorial discretion to salami slice the physical amount?”

In both the cases for Vui Kong and Ramalingam, both judges appear compassionate towards the accused. Both judges gave the condemned a leg up and a lifeline to live. Yet M Ravi did not even contest the PP’s position when it claims that it has the final say? Instead M Ravi takes the “let’s challenge the Death Penalty citing the constitution” route? Huh ?????

Yet another case study of Compassionate Judge; this time he gives PP no hoot -

Here is another case where the judge is much more compassionate than the PP. This time, the judge gives PP no hoot. Well, that’s what the writer claims. Here is the article, written by none other than Teo Soh Lung, politician from SDP and ex-ISA detainee.

How fair is our criminal justice system?

The recent decision in the motion filed by M Ravi, lawyer for Ramalingam Ravinthran complaining that in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, his client was unfairly charged with the crime that carries the mandatory death penalty is disturbing. Ramalingam was charged and sentenced to death for trafficking in cannabis while his accomplice was jailed for 20 years and given 24 strokes of the cane, a sentence which cannot be considered light especially if the claim that he has low IQ is true.

…[snip]…

I too had a taste of how arrogant prosecutors had become. In one case, my client was fortunately saved by the senior district judge and in the other, my client paid the price. The former dealt with an adult offender over 30 years of age. He came from a very good family but due to his mother’s terminal illness and his inability to cope with his depression, he shoplifted dvds from various shops all in one morning. He was caught and it was not difficult to know where he had stolen the articles. He was a first time offender and had a history of mental illness. The prosecutor charged him with more than 4 offences, taking each object of theft as one charge.

I naturally plea bargained with the prosecutor but he was only willing to reduce the number of charges to 3 which meant that the judge in sentencing would have no choice but to give him consecutive sentences and not concurrent sentences. The senior district judge was surprised that the prosecutor had taken such a tough stand against a first time offender and advised that perhaps I should see the senior deputy prosecutor. I did but to no avail. I then informed the judge in mitigation that that was the prosecutor’s stand. I asked that my client be put on probation even though it was rare that an adult would receive probation. The wise and compassionate judge granted probation, much to the surprise of the prosecutor.

So in all three cases, the judge was much more compassionate than the PP. If what Soh Lung describes is true in the rest of her article, it does appear that to be the general case.

That being so, wouldn’t contesting the idea that PP has final say what the charge should be an easier route to save the accused’s life than to contest the interpretation of constitution, simply because judges will tend to be more compassionate and hence be more willing to favour the defendants?

If M Ravi or anyone were to argue successfully that PP does not have the final say as what the charge may be, it opens the door to contest that charges that carry the Mandatory Death Penalty, or even the just the Death Penalty, can be reduced to a charge that does not warrant the Death Penalty, as per judge’s recommendation!

That would save Ramalingam’s and Vui Kong’s life, wouldn’t it?

My Views and Conclusion -

We have seen three cases where the judge has more compassion than the PP. It also appears that to be so in general, according to Ms Teo Soh Lung.

If anyone were to contest the interpretation the PP has the final say as to what the charge may be, the judge being generally compassionate, may just rule against PP’s interpretation.

When that happens, the door is now open for both Vui Kong and Ramalingam (as well as others) for their charges to be reduced because it is no longer the prerogative of the PP.

The fact that M Ravi and anti-Death Penalty campaigners do not take this route, but choose the more difficult one, ie challenging the interpretation of the constitution, makes me question their wisdom or perhaps should I say, foolhardiness.

It looks like Ramalingam will face the same fate as Vui Kong.

Related Links:
AG’s explanation on Ramalingam’s case unconvincing

Lawyers’ Association (ACLS), Lapdog of PAPpy

========

Next up on the issue of Death Penalty, Noor Atiqah. How a convicted person’s life is saved with a reduced charge, without contesting the legality of the Death Penalty itself. That’s something Singapore’s anti-Death Penalty campaigners should take note of.

Update – How Noor Atiqah’s life is saved without challenging the Death Penalty