Read what the TS post.
Read this post.
http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2006/imp-269.htm
On August 4 last year , when Jagatheesan Krishnasamy met
Gunaprakash N Thuraisamy to collect on a loan, little did he know
that Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers were watching and
waiting to bust Gunaprakash the moment he delivered ecstasy pills
to an undercover CNB officer, who had arranged a trap purchase.
Following his arrest, Gunaprakash claimed that Jagatheesan had
supplied the drugs. Seemingly on the strength of Gunaprakash's word
alone, Jagatheesan was arrested -- even though he was not the
target of the CNB operation and was never seen with any drugs. So
began Jagatheesan's nightmare, which culminated in his being
convicted and sentenced to five years' jail and 10 strokes of the
cane for drug trafficking.
On May 26 this year, Jagatheesan's ordeal finally ended when the
appeal court quashed his conviction. He was a free man -- but not
before having served months of imprisonment and being saddled with
debts of tens of thousands of dollars for legal costs. Should
Jagatheesan be left to bear the crushing burden of debt from legal
costs? Although the High Court, after hearing appeals from the
Subordinate Courts, has the power to order the prosecution to pay
costs to a person who is acquitted, that power is practically never
exercised. The situation is worse in the trial court. The law only
allows recovery of costs by a person acquitted after a High Court
or District Court trial if the prosecution was "frivolous and
vexatious", making the right to costs practically illusory. The
provisions relating to Magistrate's Court cases are even more
archaic. The maximum amount that can be recovered upon acquittal is
$50.
It is anomalous that the Singapore courts routinely award costs to
successful defendants in civil cases, but never to successful
defendants in criminal cases. On the other hand, the law does not
place any constraints on the power of the courts to award costs to
the prosecution on conviction -- no $50 limit or requirement that
the defence was "frivolous and vexatious", for example. In some
cases, the courts have awarded costs of tens of thousands of
dollars to the prosecution upon conviction of the accused
person.
"If the prosecution can get costs on conviction then even more so
it is only right that an acquitted person should be entitled to
costs. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander," said leading criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan, who acted for
Jagatheesan.
The position in Singapore contrasts sharply with that in England.
The law in England states that if a person is acquitted, the court
should normally make an order of costs in his/her favour unless
there are positive reasons for not doing so. It would further the
cause of criminal justice in Singapore if this approach were
adopted here. Currently, many who are charged are reluctant to
spend on legal costs to defend themselves when even a win means
losing their savings. The outcome of a trial may be uncertain, but
that they have to pay their lawyers is for sure. So, knowing that
they have no prospect of recovering their legal costs may very well
cause innocent persons to plead guilty.
A person should not have to choose between a wrongful conviction
and personal bankruptcy. There is no cogent reason why a person
found innocent should have to bear the costs of his defence. The
risk that a person can be wrongly charged cannot be altogether
eliminated. The question is who should bear that risk. Surely, it
is more apt for the state to do so. Since more than 95 per cent of
cases end up in convictions, it is only in a handful of case that
the state would have to bear such costs. Allowing an acquitted
person costs would also signal to the prosecution that putting an
innocent person through a trial has cost consequences. This is
bound to serve as a healthy check on the prosecution.
It is high time that the law in Singapore on costs in criminal
cases was reviewed. Defence lawyers can take the lead by making
more eloquent and forceful applications to the court when
appropriate. But, ultimately, legislative changes are called for to
make the criminal process more fair to serve us all. After all, the
presumption of innocence probably sounds like a hollow promise to a
person who walks out of a courtroom with the pyrrhic victory of an
acquittal earned at the cost of a mountain of debt and without any
compensation for the ordeal he/she has been through.
The writer is a lawyer. This is his personal comment.
