From: PeasantJUDGE 5-Jun 01:17
To: ALL 1 of 21
107295.1
1. Lee Kuan Yew is law-trained, had used the law courts extensively
to extract his pound of "justice" against his opponents, knows the
workings of the criminal justice system, yet did nothing about this
injustice.
2. Yong Pung Howe, until recently Chief Justice, did nothing about
this injustice.
3. Law Minister Prof Jaya is the man in charge of this, and did
nothing about this injustice.
4. Minister Ho Peng Kee has been sitting
on this for so many years, yet did nothing about this injustice to
Singaporeans.
5. How the hell did we live with such injustices for 40 yrs? Like I
said before, we have a good (as in well written, water tight) LEGAL
system, but a lousy JUSTICE system.
Read on...
Article in TODAY:
free, yet faced with a mountain of debt
It is high time that the law in Singapore on costs in criminal
cases is reviewed
Monday June 5, 2006
Thomas Koshy
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.
Yishun East voters hum ji. Never vote in
Poh Lee Guan.
