Judge reserves judgment on procession case

Home

News

Singapore

Wednesday, 17 March 2010

Singapore Democrats

High Court Judge Choo Han Teck has reserved judgment on the appeal by the Attorney-General against the acquital of the SDP leaders when they walked from Speakers' Corner to the Queenstown Remand Prison in September 2007.

District Judge John Ng had acquitted the four defendants (Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Mr John Tan, Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr Chong Kai Xiong) because he held the opinion that given the way the activity was organised, the was no procession.

The other defendant is Mr Yap Keng Ho who was not part of the group.

The defendants conducted the event to mark the first anniversary of the WB-IMF protest which took place on 16 Sep 06.

The AG's Chambers appealed against Judge Ng's decision which was heard yesterday morning.

The Court had appointed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the person of assistant professor Cheah Wui Leng of the NUS Law faculty to provide an opinion.

The don agreed with Judge Ng that the Miscellaneous Offences Act under which the defendants have been charged does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes a procession.

She raised certain constitutional issues, pointing out that:

This case raises a number of constitutional issues. The right to hold and participate in processions stems from the right to assemble 'peaceably and without arms' in Singapore's constitution. Constitutional rights should be given a 'generous interpretation' (Ong Ah Chuan [1980-1981] SLR 48). This does not mean that constitutional rights are absolute in nature. However, it does mean that the court should adopt a protective approach towards rights. Restrictions of right should not be easily assumed.

Read Ms Cheah's submissions in full here.

Despite this, Judge Choo opted for more time to render his verdict, the date for which is yet to be fixed.

Appeal for Yong Vui Kong

In another court development, the Court of Appeal (comprising of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, High Court Judges Andrew Phang and V K Raja) also reserved judgment after it heard arguments on convicted drug trafficker Mr Yong Vui Kong, who has been sentenced to death penalty.

He has been through 2 stays of execution. Escorted into the courtroom by four uniformed guards, the 21 year-old Malaysian hardly moved in his seat throughout the hearing, with his shoulders hunched and head bent as he followed the proceedings intently via the court translator.

Lawyer Ravi (2nd from right) with the legal team led by a QC from London Mr Yong's counsel, Mr M Ravi, advanced arguments based Article 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance of the law.

Mr Ravi contended that the mandatory death penalty violated international law.

Attorney-General Walter Woon argued for the Prosecution. At one point Mr Woon cited political arguments like Singapore being an Asian country and therefore needing strict laws.

Read Mr Woon's submissions in full here.

Share this article:

Comments (5)

Wed 17 Mar 2010 1:26 PM | Human Rights

For once the judges had used their OWN discretion. Wow, impressive. Should actually garland the judge for being able to stand up against the oppressors. I see a starting point of reformation in the judiciary which is really heroic and commendable

Wed 17 Mar 2010 7:27 PM | AnnA - Prolonged HOPES... (?)

I hope this will not be hopeless. Anticipating good news.

Thu 18 Mar 2010 3:49 AM | Robox - Speed Of Work: The Singaporean Malaise

Does everyone still remember the halycon days of the PAP's trumpeting of Singapore's legal system under Yong Pung How as 'the best in the world'? As it turned out, it was merely 'the best' at the *speed* with which the dealt with court cases: slapdash justice characterized by cases being declared closed five minutes they are opened on average.

But what do we have here?

Serious consideration - and particularly crucial when dealing with a matter of life and death - given to other pertinent legal information that Sinagpore's judges have been so accustomed to overlook because they were afflicted by the same sense of "We know best" arrogance that the PAP has?

And this is all due solely to the intense scrutiny that netizens have been subjecting law, and the judiciary to, attributable in no small part to this website.

Specifically true with regards to the first half of the story, that scrutiny and the resulting improvements in the conduct of the judiciary has entirely do to with civil disobedience cases going to court in the first place. If this indicative of a larger reform in the making which will affect how ALL court cases are dealt with, then Singaporeans have only the SDP's civil disobedience campaign to thank when they are increasingly satisfied with how their own court cases in other matters are dealt with by the courts.

That's productivity.

Thu 18 Mar 2010 5:26 AM | crescit - This is interesting

Wow...I'm no lawyer...but after reading thru Ms Cheah's entire submission it's clear to me she supports the lower court's decision. It's no wonder the high court judge, in the face of this, has had to 'reserve judgement'.

Mon 22 Mar 2010 11:54 PM | Robox

I have to say that Ravi did an incredibly good job at this hearing; I read a comment by Ms Teo Soh Lung that she had heard that the judges were very visibly impressed by his submissions to their court.

I really hope that Vui Kong's life can be saved.

But, moving on to another related matter, the argument that Ravi used in court was based on Article 12 of the Constitution; I believe that all the cases still pending in the courts against the SDP based on Article 12 can use the same arguments as Ravi did in this case.

They are actually not at all different from what I had previously written on this website on procedural law.

The basic argument - and this is more for the benifit of your readers - is that:

There is a hierachy in the structure of law and it follows as such:

1. the Constitution - laws, the fundamental rights of which are inviolable considering that they need to meet the UN's mandate and the rest of which are required to be that are passed with the consent of a two-third majority in Parliament

2. the Statutes - laws that are enacted by 50% plus one vote in Parliament

3. what I referred to as "Procedural Law" and which I acknowledged might go by a different term in Singapore. (Only Singapore trained lawyers can educate us in this matter.) Procedural law is not at all different from the "processes" that Ravi cited in court from the Indian Constitution, and that are required in the practise of government so as to result in an outcome in "equality under the law" as guaranteed under the Constitution.

It is this disregard of "procedural law" or "processes that government is legally obliged to fulfil to produce the outcome of equality under the law" that has characterized the incompetent, unproductive, and corrupt judiciary thus far in their conduct of all the politically motivated cases agaisnt the SDP.

The "procedure" or "process" that I am specifically referring to are the procedures and the processes within the SPF that refuse to produce the result of equality under the law just because it is the SDP that is applying for a police permit: a longwinded explanation for "discrimination" which is against the law, but one that is necessary in court.

Look out for any legal precedent that Vui Kong's case might make and use it.

And let's all keep hoping and working for the best for Vui Kong.