A lawyer has sought a court order to investigate his complaint of alleged misconduct by a deputy public prosecutor (DPP).
The complaint relates to a criminal case where the lawyer, Mr Zero Nalpon, defended an accused person against two counts of criminal breach of trust in 2010.
A third charge against his client was not proceeded with initially, and subsequently withdrawn.
At the end of the trial, which lasted 22 days, Mr Nalpon’s client, Mr Ezmiwardi Kanan, was convicted and fined $6,000 on the first charge and acquitted of the second.
Both the defence and prosecution appealed.
Earlier this month, High Court judge Lee Seiu Kin quashed Mr Ezmiwardi’s conviction on the first charge and ordered for the $6,000 to be returned to him.
The case involved Mr Ezmiwardi, 46, a car salesman, who had agreed to buy a Hyundai Matrix from its owner for $29,200 in 2008.
In exchange, the owner had to buy another car from Mr Ezmiwardi.
The plan derailed when Mr Ezmiwardi allegedly did not keep to his side of the bargain, leading to criminal charges against him.
The judge also dismissed the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal on the second charge, and appeal against the sentence on the first one.
Last year, in the run-up to the High Court appeal, Mr Nalpon discovered that the DPP had allegedly withheld a record of a key 999 call to the police made by the owner of the Hyundai.
In that 999 call, he had told the police to cancel an earlier 999 call he had made asking for help.
In court papers filed for Wednesday’s hearing before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Mr Nalpon claimed that the existence of this second 999 call - in addition to the first 999 call that had been admitted in the original trial - would have made a difference to his client’s case.
At issue is whether the Hyundai owner’s testimony about this second call, had it come to pass in the district court, would have changed the outcome of the case.
Mr Nalpon wants to know if another 10 days of trial could have been avoided if the testimony about the second call had come to pass.
Another issue is whether the DPP’s alleged misconduct was due to an honest oversight or something else.
Under the Legal Profession Act, an application is made directly to the Chief Justice to order an investigation into a complaint of misconduct by a legal officer or non-practising member of the profession.
This is unlike the case with practising lawyers, where the complaint is referred to the Law Society, which probes the case to assess its merits before referring it for further action.
In the case of an application to the Chief Justice, the applicant has to show the full circumstances and facts of the case to justify the convening of an investigation into a claim of misconduct.
The other party is therefore not required to be present.
The hearing is not to determine guilt.
If the application is allowed, the investigation proceeds and the affected side can state its case.
On Wednesday, CJ Chan reserved his decision at the end of a closed-door hearing, and the outcome will be known at a date to be specified.
This is understood to be the first such move against a DPP in such circumstances.
The CJ’s eventual grounds for decision are expected to clarify the circumstances in which the investigations into such complaints can, or cannot, proceed.
1 comment:
Lawyer seeks court order to probe DPP
K. C. Vijayan
30 March 2012
A lawyer has sought a court order to investigate his complaint of alleged misconduct by a deputy public prosecutor (DPP).
The complaint relates to a criminal case where the lawyer, Mr Zero Nalpon, defended an accused person against two counts of criminal breach of trust in 2010.
A third charge against his client was not proceeded with initially, and subsequently withdrawn.
At the end of the trial, which lasted 22 days, Mr Nalpon’s client, Mr Ezmiwardi Kanan, was convicted and fined $6,000 on the first charge and acquitted of the second.
Both the defence and prosecution appealed.
Earlier this month, High Court judge Lee Seiu Kin quashed Mr Ezmiwardi’s conviction on the first charge and ordered for the $6,000 to be returned to him.
The case involved Mr Ezmiwardi, 46, a car salesman, who had agreed to buy a Hyundai Matrix from its owner for $29,200 in 2008.
In exchange, the owner had to buy another car from Mr Ezmiwardi.
The plan derailed when Mr Ezmiwardi allegedly did not keep to his side of the bargain, leading to criminal charges against him.
The judge also dismissed the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal on the second charge, and appeal against the sentence on the first one.
Last year, in the run-up to the High Court appeal, Mr Nalpon discovered that the DPP had allegedly withheld a record of a key 999 call to the police made by the owner of the Hyundai.
In that 999 call, he had told the police to cancel an earlier 999 call he had made asking for help.
In court papers filed for Wednesday’s hearing before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Mr Nalpon claimed that the existence of this second 999 call - in addition to the first 999 call that had been admitted in the original trial - would have made a difference to his client’s case.
At issue is whether the Hyundai owner’s testimony about this second call, had it come to pass in the district court, would have changed the outcome of the case.
Mr Nalpon wants to know if another 10 days of trial could have been avoided if the testimony about the second call had come to pass.
Another issue is whether the DPP’s alleged misconduct was due to an honest oversight or something else.
Under the Legal Profession Act, an application is made directly to the Chief Justice to order an investigation into a complaint of misconduct by a legal officer or non-practising member of the profession.
This is unlike the case with practising lawyers, where the complaint is referred to the Law Society, which probes the case to assess its merits before referring it for further action.
In the case of an application to the Chief Justice, the applicant has to show the full circumstances and facts of the case to justify the convening of an investigation into a claim of misconduct.
The other party is therefore not required to be present.
The hearing is not to determine guilt.
If the application is allowed, the investigation proceeds and the affected side can state its case.
On Wednesday, CJ Chan reserved his decision at the end of a closed-door hearing, and the outcome will be known at a date to be specified.
This is understood to be the first such move against a DPP in such circumstances.
The CJ’s eventual grounds for decision are expected to clarify the circumstances in which the investigations into such complaints can, or cannot, proceed.
Post a Comment