[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – More must be done to level the playing field for defense attorneys so that justice can be promoted, opposition leader Pritam Singh said in parliament on Wednesday (November 4).
He also called for the separation of the dual role of the Attorney General as legal advisor to the Government and prosecutor, to avoid following the path of other countries, where attorneys general have been subject to political pressure.
Singh spoke during the debate on a motion tabled by the Chairperson of the Workers’ Party, Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC), to address issues raised in a court case involving Ms Parti Liyani, a former domestic worker from the former Changi Airport Group and President of Surbana Jurong, Liew. Mun Leong.
To level the playing field for court defense, Mr. Singh requested that the prosecution’s duty to the court to disclose relevant material that is not favorable to his case be codified in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
While the prosecution’s obligation to do so was established in the jurisprudence of a landmark 2011 Court of Appeal ruling, the prosecution has not necessarily done so in all cases, said Singh, who cited the recent case of Dr. Wee Teong. Boo, who was acquitted of all charges in June after being accused of raping and sexually abusing a patient at his Bedok clinic.
In its ruling on Dr. Wee’s case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution did not make available to the defense documents that would have established clear and material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, it said.
“Almost 10 years after (the 2011 ruling), it is timely to ask how deeply the customary law disclosure obligations of the prosecution have been internalized in our criminal justice system,” Singh said.
“In the case of Ms. Parti Liyani, the deputy prosecutors’ lack of candor in informing the trial court about the DVD player’s functionality makes a similar point about fairness in our prosecutorial system. However, what she called public attention to our prosecution was crucial. culture, “he added.
Although he emphasized that cases of non-disclosure of such information by the prosecution are not synonymous with suppression of evidence, disclosures of non-disclosure, as in the case of Dr. Wee Teong Boo, run the risk of crystallizing such perception. public.
In October, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had given the go-ahead for investigations into two deputy prosecutors, following a complaint of misconduct by Ms Parti.
During the test, the DPPs showed Ms Parti that the machine could play video stored digitally on the hard drive. But during the appeal, it was shown that he could not play DVD. The Chief Justice had discovered that there was a prima facie case that the conduct of the DPPs might suggest a lack of frankness on their part.
Mr. Singh suggested that the defense attorney be given the option of interviewing witnesses whose statements are useful to the defense at a police station. This will reassure the witnesses and allow the defense to clarify their statements before trial, and it will also allow the defense to decide whether to call the witness to court.
While the Attorney General acts as legal adviser to the Government to protect the interests of the Government, as a public prosecutor, the office represents the public, Mr. Singh said.
“(He) must prosecute without fear or favor, even if that means damaging the reputation of the government in office, or prosecuting ministers or even the prime minister. This duality of roles in one person brings with it a potential conflict of interest for the AG, which can create a potential for abuse, “he said.
To eliminate this potential conflict of interest, the role of legal advisor to the government should be separated from the role of prosecutor, with neither role subordinating to the other, he said.
Mr. Dennis Tan (Hougang) also proposed having a separate dedicated judicial service in the state courts, in order to provide more distance between prosecutors and those who work as magistrates and judges.
Currently, he noted, the Legal Services Commission elects legal officials who can be assigned from the ministries or the Attorney General’s Office (AGC) to the judiciary of the State Court, and then back out.
Having a separate judicial service would avoid a situation where magistrates and judges find themselves having colleagues from the AGC, some with greater seniority, arguing cases before them, knowing that they themselves may be referred back to the AGC in the future, he said.
Meanwhile, Mr. Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) called for the training of an ombudsman, given the issues of broader access to criminal justice and avenues of redress for those with fewer resources that arise from Ms. I left.
He said said ombudsman will function as an independent office open to Singaporeans of all backgrounds and income levels to investigate complaints about unfair administrative decisions or actions by a public agency, including delay, negligence, inconsistency, behavior. oppressive or illegality. This would extend to the conduct of all public servants, including the police and the prosecution.
In response to Mr. Singh, the Minister of Internal Affairs and Law, K. Shanmugam, agreed that it is not satisfactory to allow the prosecution’s disclosure requirements to remain a common law principle.
The government is considering putting these disclosure requirements into statute, and has been having internal discussions about this since early this year (2020), he said.
Mr. Shanmugam also reiterated to Mr. Tan his earlier point that all movements in the legal service are overseen by staff boards or committees, which are chaired by the Chief Justice and the Legal Service Commission, of the one in which the President of the Supreme Court is president.
He had also previously explained that the Legal Services Commission believes that rotation provides access to a larger pool of talent and helps its officers become more well-rounded, among other things.
Responding to Mr. Perera, Second Law Minister Edwin Tong noted that established ombudsmen in other countries have their flaws and that Singapore currently has several external review panels, although he agreed that there is room for refine the justice system.
On Singh’s call for the separation of the functions of the Attorney General, the Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, Indranee Rajah, said that there are constitutional safeguards against potential conflicts of interest.
For example, in a hypothetical scenario where the prime minister is suspected of corruption and refuses to proceed with investigations, the Constitution establishes that the director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Office (CPIB) can go to the president.
There have also been cases where the Attorney General has prosecuted high-level public officials, as well as companies linked to the government, said Ms Indranee, who is the leader of the Chamber.
However, Mr. Singh argued that such a conflict of interest is still possible, and that separating the roles can reduce the possibility of implicit bias in the public eye.
[ad_2]
