Jump to content

Law Misconceptions in SG


Benarsenal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Turbocharged
(edited)

Any police force worth its salt will never prosecute someone, unless absolutely sure he is guilty. This is because it is a grave injustice to wrongly accuse and punish an innocent, which is as bad as letting a guilty person off the hook, or worse. Also, the police knows that if a party is really innocent, there is no way he can be convicted eventually, because it is simply not true, and it's impossible to build a case without any doubt.  Unless you say the justice system is corrupted then is a different story. That's why it's safe to say in all cases of prosecution, the accused is really guilty, but some of them escape conviction because the process of building an unbreakable case by the prosecution fails. 

Edited by Ingenius
↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged
2 minutes ago, Ingenius said:

Any police force worth its salt will never prosecute someone, unless absolutely sure he is guilty. This is because it is a grave injustice to wrongly accuse and punish an innocent, which is as bad as letting a guilty person off the hook, or worse. Also, the police knows that if a party is really guilty, there is no way he can be convicted eventually, because it is simply not true, and it's impossible to build a case without any doubt.  Unless you say the justice system is corrupted then is a different story. That's why it's safe to say all cases of prosecution is the accused is really guilty, but some of them escape conviction because the process of building an unbreakable case by the prosecution fails. 

I kind of agree with you but I will not say "ALL cases"

police also make mistakes lah...

I do feel the general public don't have to worry about what turboflat is saying, all the bad things that arises from being charged by public prosecutor and then the subsequent appeal by the prosecution. 

 

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged
(edited)
23 minutes ago, Wind30 said:

I kind of agree with you but I will not say "ALL cases"

police also make mistakes lah...

I do feel the general public don't have to worry about what turboflat is saying, all the bad things that arises from being charged by public prosecutor and then the subsequent appeal by the prosecution. 

 

By that, I mean thats the working principle the police works with. Of cos they can and will make mistake along the way, as human does. That's why there is the court to have an independent party to ascertain guilt and innocence. 

Often people will cry foul and pour sympathy when an accused is let off, claiming the justice system is biased or substandard. But the fact of life is, there are people who commit wrong and get away with it, and not every guilty party being prosecuted will be convicted. This happens everywhere and all the time. 

Let off free doesn't mean is innocent in actuality. And in Singapore at least, if one doesn't break the law, there is nothing to worry about. 

An accused being let off by the court doesn't mean any innocent person will be wrongly accused by the police. It's two different thing. 

Edited by Ingenius
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mersaylee said:

It's a judgement call...the force must be strong to enforce and uphold what's under constitutional law...😁

I am talking about what happens in District Court.

If District Court Judge be less dismissive, an appeal may not be required.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought is that all laws are gender neutral, except some that were specially enacted to protect certain party, like The Woman's Charter, The Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) etc.

All laws are to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

The prosecutors have to prove in court the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 

Once an accused is acquitted by the court, he/she is deemed innocent. Who are we, the lay person, to say that he/she is still guilty? Wouldn't it be amounting to contempt of court?

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Turboflat4 said:

I understand your perspective, and I respect it. However, let me elucidate why I disagree.

The system here already heavily favours the establishment - it just seems lopsided and highly inequitable to let the prosecution, with so many resources at its disposal, have a "second crack" at "getting their man". Basically, an acquittal is supposed to be a hugely relieving event, but in Singapore, it is almost never so, as one will always have the spectre of a prosecution appeal hanging over one. A legal finding of innocence should not be tentative. Also, can you even begin to imagine the ghastliness when it comes to a capital case? You've been told you're going to live one day, only to find that that can well be reversed tomorrow.

Also, most people don't have a bottomless pit of financial resources and mounting a legal defence is expensive. Once one has won a case, to be dragged back into court and forced to defend against yet another appeal by the prosecution, seems almost an inhuman (not to mention inhumane) burden to bear.

Finally, it seems that we are getting more and more populist by the day. A lot of influence is wielded by public opinion, either directly, or with the support (I am loath to use a word like coercion) of certain elected representatives of the people. There have been cases where an acquital has been secured after the requisite and harrowing legal rigmarole, but then social media starts ringing out its condemnation of the outcome. Then so-and-so makes all kinds of statements urging the prosecution to appeal. Let's not kid ourselves that things still remain perfectly unbiased during this whole process. With such a de facto system in place, it is especially dangerous to let the prosecution have another crack at a defendant already declared innocent once - we do not want the court of public opinion to have any legal weight whatsover.

For the above reasons, I am strongly in disfavour of the current system. We're not even talking about double jeopardy here (which other jurisdictions explicitly protect one against), just the simple injustice (in my view) of putting someone who has been declared innocent through the emotional, legal and financial wringer one more time via a prosecutorial appeal.

I kinda get where you're coming from.

Delivering a judgment is a combination of assessing the facts and evidence presented, but also to some degree based on the judge's own personal, well, judgement and interpretation of the case at hand. Legal findings like "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are often derived from a judge's subjective assessment of all that has been presented to him in court. And the fact is different judges can deliver different outcomes based on their own interpretation of the case (which is why for some major cases there are more than one judge, and also the function of Court of Appeal, which is a bit like seeking second opinion from another doctor).

Unfortunately, as much as we would like it to be so, things are often not so black and white, and while I think the law will try to be as fair as they can be, it's very hard to be 100% fair in this world. All I can say is that human beings are not perfect, and judges are human beings too.

There are many cases where prosecution appeals have been dismissed too, just that they are often not reported in media.

I agree with you about the law starting to become more populist, and it is indeed a worrying trend. My feeling is that overall, Singapore's law, again, wants to protect greater society at large, but it needs to be careful not to overly pander to popular sentiment, which is very tricky to balance. I personally don't agree with many aspects of our law system myself, but it is what it is here.

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)
14 hours ago, Fitvip said:

Try to read up those cases presided by the late CJ Yong Pung How. In many of his appeal casesm the sentences were increased. 

It doesn't happen in isolation. A sentence is increased ONLY IF the prosecution appeals for it (which apparently happened quite regularly during a certain period of time, but that's another thing altogether). You can choose not to appeal your own sentence and still get it increased if the prosecution appeals.

There's no such thing as "You dare to appeal against, I increase your sentence to punish you". It simply doesn't work like that. 

Edited by Benarsenal
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Watwheels said:

It is a good thing our judicial system has remove the jury. Which I find it weird that the lawyer has to convince the panel of juries. It makes you question what is the judge there for? 

I have noticed the judges here in sg will look at cases precedent to the one on trial and make references from them. The sentencing is more or less similar when it comes to the penalty. It is good in a way you know what to expect. You might say it is predictable but at least it is better than those US courts. For them anything can happen. Kind "unstable" and unpredictable judicial system because of the verdict from the jury.

It's quite common in law to look at precedent (not just in SG, but many other places). But they only serve as guidelines as reference. Each case still has to be assessed on its own circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vratenza said:

I am a law lay person but I see this example as a failure of the prosecutor to build their case properly before putting forth their case in front of the judge.

TF4's point I believe is that if the prosecutor had done their due diligence with all the state machinery and resources behind them, there should be no real need for prosecutor to appeal any decision made by the presiding judge, assuming all the judge are of a certain standard and calibre.

Not all prosecutors are equal, and likewise not all judges.

As I said, they are all human, and humans are not perfect. There are cases where those supposedly on the state's side (police, investigators, prosecutors) have all fouled up during prosecution process, and have therefore had their arguments diminished.

For example (and maybe good to raise this as my second point), this is what is supposed to happen once you're arrested and are made to give a statement.

Statement recording process

Once a suspect is arrested, he/she will be invited to record a statement(s), either at scene of arrest or back at Police HQ.

They are supposed to follow this process:

1) Record statement from accused
2) Statement has to be read back to the accused by police
3) Accused is invited to make any changes or amendments to the statement that is read back
4) If there are no further changes, accused to sign off on statement

If any of these are not followed properly, during the trial the accused is entitled to lodge a protest and the judge will order an investigation to find out what actually happened. If due process is determined not to be followed, the recorded statement is not allowed to be entered as evidence in court.

As well, a statement cannot be induced from a suspect through coercion (forced). It has to be voluntary. Again the accused is entitled to lodge a protest, and investigations will be carried out. Involuntary statements will also be disallowed as evidence in court (it has happened before. Judge found that police officers behaved like 'gangsters' to force a confession from suspect, and statement was thrown out).

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vratenza said:

I am not assuming. I expect them to be 100% on the job with series of internal balance and checks with proper supervision by an experienced AG before each prosecution case see the light of the court.

their mistakes can mean life or death with very serious consequences for the unfortunate victim/culprit whichever way it goes.

Unfortunately, it cannot be 100%. Prosecutors can foul up too. It just isn't reported widely.

If one is really innocent, honestly there really is nothing to worry about. There simply will not be enough facts and evidence to convict.

(Drug matters are different however. This one I feel really needs serious re-looking)

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Benarsenal said:

I kinda get where you're coming from.

Delivering a judgment is a combination of assessing the facts and evidence presented, but also to some degree based on the judge's own personal, well, judgement and interpretation of the case at hand. Legal findings like "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are often derived from a judge's subjective assessment of all that has been presented to him in court. And the fact is different judges can deliver different outcomes based on their own interpretation of the case (which is why for some major cases there are more than one judge, and also the function of Court of Appeal, which is a bit like seeking second opinion from another doctor).

Unfortunately, as much as we would like it to be so, things are often not so black and white, and while I think the law will try to be as fair as they can be, it's very hard to be 100% fair in this world. All I can say is that human beings are not perfect, and judges are human beings too.

There are many cases where prosecution appeals have been dismissed too, just that they are often not reported in media.

I agree with you about the law starting to become more populist, and it is indeed a worrying trend. My feeling is that overall, Singapore's law, again, wants to protect greater society at large, but it needs to be careful not to overly pander to popular sentiment, which is very tricky to balance. I personally don't agree with many aspects of our law system myself, but it is what it is here.

A very balanced and thoughtful view, one I've come to expect from you. 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)
14 hours ago, Fitvip said:

Try to read up those cases presided by the late CJ Yong Pung How. In many of his appeal casesm the sentences were increased. 

 

58 minutes ago, Benarsenal said:

It doesn't happen in isolation. A sentence is increased ONLY IF the prosecution appeals for it (which apparently happened quite regularly during a certain period of time, but that's another thing altogether). You can choose not to appeal your own sentence and still get it increased if the prosecution appeals.

There's no such thing as "You dare to appeal against, I increase your sentence to punish you". It simply doesn't work like that. 

Wrong. @fitvip is correct.

Before YPH became CJ, defence lawyers routinely file appeal agst conviction and sentences becos "nothing to lose".

CJ Yong put an end to the practice which was choking the court calender.

Recent example of sentence enhancement without appeal by prosecution . Presided by the current CJ.

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/he-asked-shorter-jail-term-after-cheating-women-sex-chief-justice-doubles-his#:~:text=Instead%2C Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon,of S%2420%2C000 remains unchanged.

In delivering his judgement on Wednesday, Chief Justice Menon said that at the hearing of the appeal, he had specifically informed the parties involved in the case that it was possible he might enhance the sentence, even though prosecution had not argued for a higher sentence.

 

 

Edited by flat6
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Benarsenal 

1 hour ago, Benarsenal said:

 

https://www.todayonline.com/profile/login?redirect_url=/singapore/yong-pung-how-struck-fear-criminals-and-their-lawyers-who-appealed-their-sentences-him&bookmark=0ef5ab2a-5208-476c-b441-1a8d6ccb9440

1 hour ago, Benarsenal said:

It doesn't happen in isolation. A sentence is increased ONLY IF the prosecution appeals for it (which apparently happened quite regularly during a certain period of time, but that's another thing altogether). You can choose not to appeal your own sentence and still get it increased if the prosecution appeals.

There's no such thing as "You dare to appeal against, I increase your sentence to punish you". It simply doesn't work like that. 

1 hour ago, Benarsenal said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, flat6 said:

 

Wrong. @fitvip is correct.

Before YPH became CJ, defence lawyers routinely file appeal agst conviction and sentences becos "nothing to lose".

CJ Yong put an end to the practice which was choking the court calender.

Recent example of sentence enhancement without appeal by prosecution . Presided by the current CJ.

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/he-asked-shorter-jail-term-after-cheating-women-sex-chief-justice-doubles-his#:~:text=Instead%2C Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon,of S%2420%2C000 remains unchanged.

In delivering his judgement on Wednesday, Chief Justice Menon said that at the hearing of the appeal, he had specifically informed the parties involved in the case that it was possible he might enhance the sentence, even though prosecution had not argued for a higher sentence.

 

 

I need to read into this case. It is very uncommon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fitvip said:

CJ Yong was appointed to improve the efficiency of the Courts. To rid the Courts of its "nuahness'.

When CJ Wee was in charge, the Courts had not rid themselves of the colonial era 'lax atmosphere'. Adjournments after adjourments were allowed without the need to provide  valid reasons. A High Court case typically took 7-10 years before  they were concluded.

When CJ Yong took over, the honeymoon was truly over for the lawyers. Every Judge became super on! Woe betide the lawyer who appeared before the Courts unprepared, asking for an adjournment. Some lawyers were even made to pay costs personally for wasting the Courts' time!  A High Court case went from 7-10 years to 2-3 years to conclude.

 

 

 

  • Praise 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flat6 said:

 

Wrong. @fitvip is correct.

Before YPH became CJ, defence lawyers routinely file appeal agst conviction and sentences becos "nothing to lose".

CJ Yong put an end to the practice which was choking the court calender.

Recent example of sentence enhancement without appeal by prosecution . Presided by the current CJ.

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/he-asked-shorter-jail-term-after-cheating-women-sex-chief-justice-doubles-his#:~:text=Instead%2C Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon,of S%2420%2C000 remains unchanged.

In delivering his judgement on Wednesday, Chief Justice Menon said that at the hearing of the appeal, he had specifically informed the parties involved in the case that it was possible he might enhance the sentence, even though prosecution had not argued for a higher sentence.

 

 

Thanks. At least you and I are aware of what have been happening. Sentences could be enhanced without the prosecutor appealing. 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...