When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Tuesday 15 July 2008
Singapore's judiciary system is still third world standard
'If the prosecution allowed their own witnesses to see their statements, I can't see why they should deny it to the defendant.' - LAWYER EDMOND PEREIRA
Read "Judge slams CNB for complete neglect of duties" here.
A DISTRICT judge has slammed the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) for its sloppy investigation into stevedore Yunani Abdul Hamid’s case.
Explaining why she acquitted Mr Yunani, District Judge Jasvender Kaur said the bureau should have done more to track down his alleged accomplice Abdul Aziz Idros.
The extent of the CNB’s search for Abdul Aziz back in April 1992 amounted to just one visit to his flat and the issuance of an alert to all law enforcement agencies.
Abdul Aziz, who is now serving a 12-year jail sentence, has admitted in court that he had kept in constant contact with his family during his 15 years on the run.
Judge Jasvender criticised the investigating officer at that time, Staff Sergeant Cheong Wah Chow, saying he should have done much more.
Mr Yunani and Abdul Aziz were leaving a port at which they worked on a motorcycle when a guard stopped them and found a bag of cannabis in a bag carried by Abdul Aziz.
Both men fled, but Mr Yunani later turned himself in. He maintained that the bag belonged to his friend and he did not know its contents.
As Abdul Aziz was on the run, Mr Yunani was placed on remand until the bag’s ownership could be confirmed. He was discharged in December that year, but with the proviso that he could be re-charged if new evidence came to light.
Judge Jasvender said it was ‘quite remarkable’ that Staff Sgt Cheong had not taken steps to verify who owned the bag when he could have just asked the men’s colleagues.
The officer, who retired in 2000, could also have interviewed relatives of both men to see if the bag, or the clothes inside, belonged to either one of them, she noted.
Instead, the authorities ‘simply chose to wait’ for Abdul Aziz to be arrested.
The wait lasted 15 years.
The judge called the lack of a thorough investigation a ‘complete neglect of duties’.
She added that ‘at the very least’, the CNB should have determined who owned the bag, interviewed Mr Yunani’s friends and family to see if he had any motivation to traffick the drug as well as verified Mr Yunani’s account of events with his colleagues.
The judge also had pointed remarks for Deputy Public Prosecutor Lim Tse Haw.
She found it ‘seriously troubling’ that the prosecution had initially refused to show Mr Yunani his police statements made way back in 1992, despite her asking for it to be done due to the long delay in prosecution.
She said the refusal was ‘plainly not in the right spirit and did not show a sense of fairness’ by the prosecution.
The prosecutor finally did so at the judge’s order.
But what destroyed the prosecution’s case was Abdul Aziz’s credibility.
Judge Jasvender said the ‘resurrecting’ of the charges against Mr Yunani, now 34, after 15 years was based largely on Abdul Aziz’s word.
But Abdul Aziz, now 41, was a self-confessed cannabis user, a fugitive for 15 years who had even tried to evade arrest by producing false identity documents when he was caught at a roadblock.
Facing a capital charge, the judge noted, it was ‘only natural’ for Abdul Aziz to shift the blame from himself.
The investigating officer did not interview other material witnesses such as the suspect’s colleagues and relatives. He simply waited for the accomplice, Abdul Aziz Idros, to be arrested by issuing an alert. The officer also paid just one visit to the accomplice’s home.
‘This attitude of merely waiting to hear what an accomplice who is on the run would have to say instead of verifying the detailed version of the accused who was in custody and who was protesting his innocence was a complete neglect of duties.’ - DISTRICT JUDGE JASVENDER KAUR
‘This was a 1992 case. We have since introduced processes to enhance outcomes and ensure that investigations are carried out thoroughly and to the extent possible, expeditiously. Relevant leads are pursued without let-up. There are sufficient checks and balance at various levels and evidence gathered is scrutinised thoroughly before proceeding further.’ - A CNB SPOKESMAN
PROSECUTION NOT PLAYING FAIR
The prosecution initially refused to let Mr Yunani see the police statements he made in 1992, until ordered to do so by the judge. ‘The objection was plainly not in the right spirit and did not show a sense of fairness that is expected of the prosecution.’ - DISTRICT JUDGE JASVENDER KAUR
‘The Deputy Public Prosecutor’s position with respect to the release of the long statement of the accused is consistent with the established case law on this matter. We made the submission to the Court and the learned District Judge was aware of the case authority. She has made the ruling in this case on the particular circumstances in the case. We do not have any further comment on the matter.’ - ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS’ SPOKESMAN HAN MING KUANG
‘If the prosecution allowed their own witnesses to see their statements, I can’t see why they should deny it to the defendant.’ - LAWYER EDMOND PEREIRA
2 comments:
The Straits Times - July 15, 2008
Judge slams CNB for ‘complete neglect of duties’
A DISTRICT judge has slammed the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) for its sloppy investigation into stevedore Yunani Abdul Hamid’s case.
Explaining why she acquitted Mr Yunani, District Judge Jasvender Kaur said the bureau should have done more to track down his alleged accomplice Abdul Aziz Idros.
The extent of the CNB’s search for Abdul Aziz back in April 1992 amounted to just one visit to his flat and the issuance of an alert to all law enforcement agencies.
Abdul Aziz, who is now serving a 12-year jail sentence, has admitted in court that he had kept in constant contact with his family during his 15 years on the run.
Judge Jasvender criticised the investigating officer at that time, Staff Sergeant Cheong Wah Chow, saying he should have done much more.
Mr Yunani and Abdul Aziz were leaving a port at which they worked on a motorcycle when a guard stopped them and found a bag of cannabis in a bag carried by Abdul Aziz.
Both men fled, but Mr Yunani later turned himself in. He maintained that the bag belonged to his friend and he did not know its contents.
As Abdul Aziz was on the run, Mr Yunani was placed on remand until the bag’s ownership could be confirmed. He was discharged in December that year, but with the proviso that he could be re-charged if new evidence came to light.
Judge Jasvender said it was ‘quite remarkable’ that Staff Sgt Cheong had not taken steps to verify who owned the bag when he could have just asked the men’s colleagues.
The officer, who retired in 2000, could also have interviewed relatives of both men to see if the bag, or the clothes inside, belonged to either one of them, she noted.
Instead, the authorities ‘simply chose to wait’ for Abdul Aziz to be arrested.
The wait lasted 15 years.
The judge called the lack of a thorough investigation a ‘complete neglect of duties’.
She added that ‘at the very least’, the CNB should have determined who owned the bag, interviewed Mr Yunani’s friends and family to see if he had any motivation to traffick the drug as well as verified Mr Yunani’s account of events with his colleagues.
The judge also had pointed remarks for Deputy Public Prosecutor Lim Tse Haw.
She found it ‘seriously troubling’ that the prosecution had initially refused to show Mr Yunani his police statements made way back in 1992, despite her asking for it to be done due to the long delay in prosecution.
She said the refusal was ‘plainly not in the right spirit and did not show a sense of fairness’ by the prosecution.
The prosecutor finally did so at the judge’s order.
But what destroyed the prosecution’s case was Abdul Aziz’s credibility.
Judge Jasvender said the ‘resurrecting’ of the charges against Mr Yunani, now 34, after 15 years was based largely on Abdul Aziz’s word.
But Abdul Aziz, now 41, was a self-confessed cannabis user, a fugitive for 15 years who had even tried to evade arrest by producing false identity documents when he was caught at a roadblock.
Facing a capital charge, the judge noted, it was ‘only natural’ for Abdul Aziz to shift the blame from himself.
KHUSHWANT SINGH
TWO AREAS THAT RILE DISTRICT JUDGE
SLOPPY INVESTIGATION BY THE CNB
The investigating officer did not interview other material witnesses such as the suspect’s colleagues and relatives. He simply waited for the accomplice, Abdul Aziz Idros, to be arrested by issuing an alert. The officer also paid just one visit to the accomplice’s home.
‘This attitude of merely waiting to hear what an accomplice who is on the run would have to say instead of verifying the detailed version of the accused who was in custody and who was protesting his innocence was a complete neglect of duties.’ - DISTRICT JUDGE JASVENDER KAUR
‘This was a 1992 case. We have since introduced processes to enhance outcomes and ensure that investigations are carried out thoroughly and to the extent possible, expeditiously. Relevant leads are pursued without let-up. There are sufficient checks and balance at various levels and evidence gathered is scrutinised thoroughly before proceeding further.’ - A CNB SPOKESMAN
PROSECUTION NOT PLAYING FAIR
The prosecution initially refused to let Mr Yunani see the police statements he made in 1992, until ordered to do so by the judge.
‘The objection was plainly not in the right spirit and did not show a sense of fairness that is expected of the prosecution.’ - DISTRICT JUDGE JASVENDER KAUR
‘The Deputy Public Prosecutor’s position with respect to the release of the long statement of the accused is consistent with the established case law on this matter. We made the submission to the Court and the learned District Judge was aware of the case authority. She has made the ruling in this case on the particular circumstances in the case. We do not have any further comment on the matter.’ - ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS’ SPOKESMAN HAN MING KUANG
‘If the prosecution allowed their own witnesses to see their statements, I can’t see why they should deny it to the defendant.’ - LAWYER EDMOND PEREIRA
Post a Comment