Call for level playing field for defence, setting up of ombudsman
Among other things, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh called for the prosecution's duty to the court to disclose relevant material not favourable to its case to be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code.
More should be done to level the playing field for defence lawyers, so that justice can be furthered, said Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh in Parliament yesterday.
Among other things, he called for the prosecution's duty to the court to disclose relevant material not favourable to its case to be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code.
While the prosecution's obligation to do so has been set out in case law from a 2011 Court of Appeal judgment, the prosecution has not necessarily done so in all cases, said Mr Singh, who cited the recent case of Dr Wee Teong Boo, who was cleared of all charges in June after being accused of raping and molesting a patient.
In the judgment on Dr Wee's case, the Court of Appeal had ruled that the prosecution did not make available to the defence documents that would have established "clear and material inconsistencies" in the prosecution's evidence, Mr Singh noted.
"Almost 10 years after (the 2011 Court of Appeal judgment), it is apposite to ask how deeply the prosecution's common law disclosure obligations have been internalised in our criminal justice system," he said.
Mr Singh was speaking during the debate on a motion moved by Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) on issues raised by a court case involving Ms Parti Liyani, the former domestic worker of former Changi Airport Group and Surbana Jurong chairman Liew Mun Leong.
"In Ms Parti Liyani's case, the lack of forthrightness of the deputy public prosecutors in informing the trial court about the serviceability of the DVD player makes a similar point about fairness in our adversarial system.
"Crucially, however, it raised the public's eyebrows about our prosecutorial culture," he added.
While he stressed that cases of non-disclosure of such information by the prosecution are not synonymous with the suppression of evidence, revelations of non-disclosure, like in Dr Wee's case, risk crystallising such a public perception.
The Chief Justice had in October given the go-ahead for investigations into two deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) to commence, following a misconduct complaint by Ms Parti.
At the trial, the DPPs showed Ms Parti the machine could play a video stored digitally in the hard disk. But at the appeal, it was shown it could not play DVDs. The Chief Justice had found there was a prima facie case that the DPPs' conduct might suggest a lack of candour on their part.
While the Attorney-General serves as the Government's legal adviser to protect the interests of the Government, as public prosecutor, the office also represents the public, said Mr Singh.
"(He) must prosecute without fear or favour, even if it means damaging the reputation of the government of the day, or prosecuting ministers or even the prime minister."
This dual role creates a conflict of interest, he pointed out.
To remove this possible conflict of interest, the role of government legal adviser should be split from the role of public prosecutor, with neither role subordinate to the other, he said.
Mr Dennis Tan (Hougang) also proposed having a separate dedicated judicial service in the State Courts.
Currently, he noted, the Legal Service Commission chooses legal officers who may be posted from the ministries or the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) into the State Court judiciary, and then out again.
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, while knowing they may themselves be posted back to the AGC in the future, he said.
Meanwhile, Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) called for an ombudsman to be set up, given the questions of wider access to criminal justice and avenues of redress for those with lesser means arising from Ms Parti's case.
He said such an 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 of a public agency.
In response, Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong pointed out that ombudsmen in other countries have their failings, and that Singapore has already many of such external review panels set up, though he agreed with Mr Perera that there is room to better the justice system.
In response to Mr Singh, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam agreed that it is unsatisfactory to let the prosecution's disclosure requirements remain a common law principle.
The Government is looking at setting out these disclosure requirements in statute, and it has been having internal discussions on this since early this year, he said.
Mr Shanmugam also reiterated to Mr Tan his point made earlier that all movements in the legal service are overseen by personnel boards or committees, which are chaired by the Chief Justice and Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice is president.
He had also earlier explained that the Legal Service Commission believes that rotation provides access to a larger pool of talent and helps its officers become more well-rounded, among other things.
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.