When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Saturday, 13 December 2008
AG Woon: Wealth is not a factor
To those who question if there are separate laws for the rich and the poor, Singapore’s top prosecutor is most definite: Wealth is not a factor in the wheels of justice.
To those who question if there are separate laws for the rich and the poor, Singapore’s top prosecutor is most definite: Wealth is not a factor in the wheels of justice.
“The fact that the perpetrator is rich does not cut any ice, not with us,” said Attorney-General Walter Woon.
Recently, criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan had questioned — in an article in Probono, the official publication of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) — the apparently discriminatory treatment in the matter of compounding offences.
A composition is a private arrangement where matters are settled between the complainant and the accused with the payment of money. In Singapore, this is allowed in certain cases such as simple assault, and it is up to the public prosecutor to decide if the case is of public interest to warrant prosecution.
At the association’s inaugural lecture yesterday, Professor Woon admitted that “composition, by its nature, favours the people who can afford to pay”. However, “the court is there as a check and the Attorney-General’s Chambers is there to bring to the court the judicial discretion whether to allow the composition”, he said.
And there are some cases — maid abuse or road rage, for instance — where composition will not be allowed, “because we don’t want people to buy justice”.
The list may change over time, as society itself changes. “We want to find consistent trends — if we have a lot of maid abuse cases, we will object (to compounding the offence). Or even certain kinds of theft,” he added.
In his article, Mr. Subhas, who is president of the ACLS, cited several cases where the courts refused to allow the accused to privately settle: with the victims, apparently in the public interest. Mr. Subhas argued, the Subordinate Court rarely overruled the objection of a public prosecutor to compound a sentence.
:The new Criminal Procedure Bill will clarify matters somewhat. It spells out that the public prosecutor’s consent must be sought if investigations have started or when an accused has been charged. He would take into acount the public interest factor, in assessing whether the victim should accept the composition.
:Without refering to the Bill, Prof Woon yesterday said currently, “the judge is not obliged to accept what the DPP says”. In a 1995 case, for example, an accused who punched a man opted to settle the matter privately; the court allowed this though the prosecutor objected.
In the more recent slapping case, the Attorney-General pointed out that the two parties had settled the matter before the prosecution drew its papers, and it was decided that it was “not in the public interest” to proceed with the case.
He also stressed that the prosecution is often privy to information that “as a general principle”, it should not say publicly as “it would not be to the accused’s advantage”.
One lawyer later said the lecture helped shed some light into one of Singapore law’s murkiest areas.
“They need to classify what kind of cases can be compounded, but I think Prof Woon has cleared the perception that the rich and poor face different laws. In Singapore, a person is judged by their actions – status is not an issue,” said Harry Elias Partnership’s Mr. Shashi Nathan.
But Khattar Wong’s Sunil Sudheesan said the issue of composition would always be shrouded in controversy as “high-profile cases that are compounded will get more prominence because the press will cover it.”
As for Mr. Subhas, he said: “I need a little bit more convincing, but it is good that he took the time to clarify.”
1 comment:
AG Woon: Wealth is not a factor
12 December 2008
To those who question if there are separate laws for the rich and the poor, Singapore’s top prosecutor is most definite: Wealth is not a factor in the wheels of justice.
“The fact that the perpetrator is rich does not cut any ice, not with us,” said Attorney-General Walter Woon.
Recently, criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan had questioned — in an article in Probono, the official publication of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) — the apparently discriminatory treatment in the matter of compounding offences.
A composition is a private arrangement where matters are settled between the complainant and the accused with the payment of money. In Singapore, this is allowed in certain cases such as simple assault, and it is up to the public prosecutor to decide if the case is of public interest to warrant prosecution.
At the association’s inaugural lecture yesterday, Professor Woon admitted that “composition, by its nature, favours the people who can afford to pay”. However, “the court is there as a check and the Attorney-General’s Chambers is there to bring to the court the judicial discretion whether to allow the composition”, he said.
And there are some cases — maid abuse or road rage, for instance — where composition will not be allowed, “because we don’t want people to buy justice”.
The list may change over time, as society itself changes. “We want to find consistent trends — if we have a lot of maid abuse cases, we will object (to compounding the offence). Or even certain kinds of theft,” he added.
In his article, Mr. Subhas, who is president of the ACLS, cited several cases where the courts refused to allow the accused to privately settle: with the victims, apparently in the public interest. Mr. Subhas argued, the Subordinate Court rarely overruled the objection of a public prosecutor to compound a sentence.
:The new Criminal Procedure Bill will clarify matters somewhat. It spells out that the public prosecutor’s consent must be sought if investigations have started or when an accused has been charged. He would take into acount the public interest factor, in assessing whether the victim should accept the composition.
:Without refering to the Bill, Prof Woon yesterday said currently, “the judge is not obliged to accept what the DPP says”. In a 1995 case, for example, an accused who punched a man opted to settle the matter privately; the court allowed this though the prosecutor objected.
In the more recent slapping case, the Attorney-General pointed out that the two parties had settled the matter before the prosecution drew its papers, and it was decided that it was “not in the public interest” to proceed with the case.
He also stressed that the prosecution is often privy to information that “as a general principle”, it should not say publicly as “it would not be to the accused’s advantage”.
One lawyer later said the lecture helped shed some light into one of Singapore law’s murkiest areas.
“They need to classify what kind of cases can be compounded, but I think Prof Woon has cleared the perception that the rich and poor face different laws. In Singapore, a person is judged by their actions – status is not an issue,” said Harry Elias Partnership’s Mr. Shashi Nathan.
But Khattar Wong’s Sunil Sudheesan said the issue of composition would always be shrouded in controversy as “high-profile cases that are compounded will get more prominence because the press will cover it.”
As for Mr. Subhas, he said: “I need a little bit more convincing, but it is good that he took the time to clarify.”
Post a Comment