Update2:
I found an interesting article from some time back. You guys might like want to have a read and see what you think. Here[PDF].
Update:
A post from a real lawyer at Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified.
———————————————————————————————————-
From Todayonline:
Speaking to about 300 court administrators and judges, the CJ noted that the quality of judgments have improved, based on his experiences of hearing the Magistrates’ Criminal Appeals from the Subordinate Courts. For example, out of 340,000 cases heard at the Subordinate Courts last year, only about 238 went on appeal to the High Court, he said, adding that “few of them succeeded”.
About 95 per cent of cases in Singapore are heard in the Subordinate Courts.
CJ Yong said he had posted some of the “best and brightest Legal Service Officers to serve here” in the last 10 years.
“There should be no ultimate finish line in your desire to improve the quality of justice for our nation,” he said
I can’t imagine the CJ saying that with a straight face. Small number of appeals == good judgments? Say it ain’t so!
I remember a story from a friend of mine, who is a real lawyer, about a perticularly funny incident in Court. Apparently it was a criminal justice matter. The judge was deciding on sentencing, and he took out this little file with a stack of notes, and he read directly from the notes, saying that ‘CJ has set out this as the sentence, so I shall just follow it’.
Well now, I know what stare decisis is, but this really takes the cake for following precedent. Why the hell do you need judges if all you have to do is just read out from your little stack of notes? Any idiot can do that job.
And yes, I know, mandatory sentencing guidelines in Singapore don’t give much leeway for judicial discretion in criminal matters, but then this really is more an indictment of the entire system, isn’t it?
“Human rights? What human rights? In Singapore, we don’t care about human rights!”
- lawyer with whom I spoke to who prefers to remain anonymous
32 Comments
eeep. We do, we do care. We just don’t like the language of rights. Take the recent constitutional amendment of citizenship rights for women. Although it was done so in response to the the CEDAW committee’s urging, (with MP Charles Chong actually uttering ‘human rights’ in parliament!), the amendment bill was seen as a furtherance of state goals; not a vindication of womens’ rights.
Anyway, we fare the worst in due process rights. Crime control is the paramount concern. Our policy seems based on the rationale that it is better to convict one innocent in ten, then to let one guilty bugger go free. There is no presumption of innocence here.
Nice site! I’ve surfed in before, but have never commented. Keep up the regular posting
desse: where would you think the presumption of innocence exists?
han: you might to contrst his speech with the refusal for appeal on the premier taxi road rage case.
another pt is that (i might be wrong) but beyond a certain level appeals are only allowed on mistakes of law. hence if less appeals, it means the magistrate courts judges are getting their ruling on law correct.
desse:
Thanks! Your words of encouragement are much appreciated.
ivan:
Of course they’re getting their ruling on the law ‘correct’! I’m sure that the lack of appeals reflect a sort of monolithic certainty on the law.
I think the problem is that the lack of appeals reflects a system of law constructed to minimise the extent which judges can ‘think’ in their decisions. I mean, no thinking, no chance of conflict, correct?
To the best of my knowledge, all appeals can only be on a mistake of law. (Unless precedent fact blah blah blah.)
But I agree with Han that no appeals does not mean better judgements lah. Er, truth be said, I have read quite a few of the criminal cases decided by the CJ, and I am not sure I agree with many of them. On the issue of joint liability for example, there were a series of cases in which they all reached a different decision, e.g. one case said that the joint accused had to be at the scene to be guilty of the crime, another case said there was no need for the person to be even at the scene, nor know what the others were doing, etc. And it was all impossible to reconcile because they did not overrule one another.
Anyway, I don’t know about the situation in other countries, but it’s a fact that the CJ was a businessman, and if you read Francis Seow’s article on the judiciary, he implies that LKY chose the CJ apparently because they were classmates at Cambridge, and LKY said in Parliament that the CJ was a nice person who used to lend him notes or something like that. A pretty frivolous reason for selecting a CJ in my opinion but what the heck.
ivan:
Do you mean where else in the common law world? Aii.. Let me see whether I get this right. The general position at common law: in criminal cases, proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the normative position in Singapore as well: s.103 Evi. Act.
There are exceptions. Generally, if the accused wishes to plead a defence of insanity, provocation etc, the burden shifts to him. Statutory exceptions also exist for severe crimes: the Misuse of Drugs Act requires the accused to bear the burden.
The reason why I say there is effectively no presumption of innocence in Singapore is because of the way cases here have interpreted ‘burden’.
There are two definitions of ‘burden’ at the common law: the evidential and the legal. Evidential burden refers to the burden of producing evidence. Legal burden on the other hand, refers to a persuasive burden: if you don’t discharge it, you bear the risk of non-persuasion.
In Singapore, we only have the legal burden. That means that when the burden shifts to the accused, he bears the risk of non-persuasion of his case on a balance of probabilities. In England, when the ’shifting’ occurs, the accused merely bears the burden of producing evidence. He doesn’t have to prove on a balance of probabilities that say, the gunshot was an accident. He just has to produce evidence enough to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.
Hmm. I think I shall stop here before I confuse myself further.
Anyway, if I’m not wrong, beyond the trial judge, only points of law can be appealed.
I thought it was Lai Kew Chai who heard the request for appeal? I remember thinking that if it were our CJ it would have been a jail term for sure.
Actually, there IS some confusion floating around here. I shall write about this in my blog:
Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified
and attempt some demystification.
desse: i think the notion of English law being just is overly romanticised. I haven’t got a clue as to Sg law though.
They do have legal burdens as well, however the Lordships are more inclined to find that evidential burdens are imposed. However legal burdens are still imposed, something that the ECHR allows.
this is just with regards to offences that impose a reverse burden, i’m not going into statutory defences etc.
While it might be said that Sg does go too far at times, but the issue is that it’s about the same in uk. In fact, legal burdens might become more accepted in the future due to 9-11.
Lastly, the presumption of innocence normally is about reversal of burden among other issues. The is little distinction between a legal and evidential burden. ie. while a legal burden is vile compared to a evidential burden, they both violate the presumption of innocence doctrine. This is the reason i ask if there are any jurisdiction where there is effectively a presumption of innocence. ALL jurisdictions have reverse burden.
Han:
well, you hit the nail on the head - The judgements are correct, but what is the definition of correct.
and to echo a point Gilbert made on his site. An Australian judge once said
In this regard, better direction from above might be a good thing as well.
A:
Disparities in judgements keeps the legal academics in employment.
A,
IF I were the PM in a young nation frought with many uncertainties socially and politically, I would want to set up a judiciary under someone I know and trust, _both_ at a personal and professional level. Even if YOU have left the legal practice, I would call you and invite you back, too.
And as you would know very well, you will always have your own views and your appointment will not necessarily entail that you would be beholden to me. The conflation sets in, in my simplistic opinion, because our current judiciary seems to independently adopt a “communitarian” mindset, which is similar to that of the Executive.
The weakest point in what I said is arguably, I think, the amount of damages awarded in some defamation suits.
Heheh. Might as well ask why do you need lawyers for when all they do is sit in their office signing paperwork and going for power lunches? (kidding)
Personally I think that is exactly what judges should do (regurgitate precedents) rather then attempt interpreting and consequently running the risk of misinterpreting the law for themselves or deviating from previous case law - making the law should be left in the hands of the executive.
And Legal Certainty is crucial to a good economy - corporate entities would want to be sure they are complying with the legal requirements - or face drastic consequences.
As Ivan says, i don’t think its a matter of ‘correct’ or ‘wrong’ because that is somewhat subjective, but rather its certainty that matters imho.
Nah, dc. I disagree. When the current CJ was appointed, Singapore was hardly in an unstable position. And you have got to be kidding me if you tell me that LKY could only trust a fellow classmate, but not other great lawyers like Tommy Koh etc? I mean, I am sure there were worthy candidates around.
And secondly, the amount of money they pay judges makes it very hard for them not to be beholden. I have thought about it before, and seriously, on that kind of money, I would sell my soul too. Haha. I think the older you get, the higher the stakes, and the more you stand to lose.
Anyway, Gilbert’s entry doesn’t really tell us whether the judgements are getting better or not. And I think they are not. For one, something is fundamentally wrong when the CJ is often the only judge who sits in the High Court (highest court for criminal cases if I recall correctly from Singapore Legal System module). We all know that no one can be immune from prejudices, sub conscious or not. And when there’s only one judge making a whole series of decisions, the law is naturally affected by his view of it. And I think that’s unacceptable. And I can’t even recall reading one local case where there was a dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal. Are the judges all so agreeable on all issues of the law that they have never seen fit to dissent? (On second thoughts, I think I do remember a couple of cases, but far too little for comfort.)
Anyway the amount of discussion is good. Maybe we can start a law students blog haha.
A:
I’m with you on this one. Gilbert says:
And I agree, that a deep body of law from which judges of the lower court can draw from is a very good thing, as it preserves coherence and predictibility of the law. But if that entire body of law is drawn from the decisions of just 1 person, or just 2 or 3 persons, is that not a very dangerous thing?
I personally have always believed that a diversity of opinion is just like a diverse ecosystem. If only 1 strand of thought defines the entire system, all it takes is for a single flaw in that strand and the entire system falls.
Some may argue that has yet to happen, and may not even happen. But honestly, take a straw poll from the lay person on the street, and you can very much tell that the average person feels that the law is stacked against them.
redrown,
firstly, i think you mean the legislative makes law rather than the executive.
and secondly, i think certainty is no doubt a laudable virtue in any legal system, but that cannot be at the expense of justice. and times change, as judith prakash (correct spelling?) demonstrated when she recently held that an email could also form a valid contract. we have got to move with the times, and following a precedent should not always be the norm. that would defeat the purpose of having a judiciary. we would merely need an administrative court to rubber stamp all the judgements. i doubt we would even need lawyers.
and there are inherent differences in the commercial cases and criminal cases. certainty of law is definitely a must in the commercial context, but i disagree that that would be as important in criminal cases. i don’t believe most criminals commit a crime on the basis that it is not a crime, or based on precedents for sentencing. i mean, that would be surely stupid and against public policy if a criminal argued in court that he committed the crime knowing that all past cases did not result in imprisonment but only fines, so he can’t be sentenced to jail now because that would defeat his expectations. yes, i know they do argue that, but i think it’s not something worth aspiring to. i think in such cases, flexibility is more important than certainty.
and there’s a case (geraldine koh) we did in year one criminal law where the lady was sentenced to death for murder; she did not commit the murder, nor was she even at the scene of the crime. She was merely standing guard at the stairwell, and did not know of the murder (though she instigated the attack, which she claimed was to hurt the victim, not kill her). nevertheless, she was held jointly liable, and hanged along with the actual murderers. i am not sure the reasoning is always strong, and i do feel that the death penalty may be meted out a little too simply. in some countries, the death penalty needs to be given by a jury, or a unanimous decision of the judges, but in Singapore, it appears as if one judge is sufficient to hang you. worth a thought.
For the record, I am not against the death penalty per se. I am not even against the judiciary. I just think that the judges, in deciding cases, do need to consider their constitutional role, and some things can certainly be improved. For one, I laud the speed of the system these days; most cases now take months instead of years to come to a conclusion. However, I believe that the death penalty, by virtue of its harshness, must be governed more carefully. It should only be awarded after much thought. And there’s no injustice in having stricter requirements for meting out the penalty. I am not saying that he gets off; in most cases, if he doesn’t get hanged, then he should get life imprisonment, and I suspect that is even more painful than an instant death. And having one judge at the highest court definitely needs to be reconsidered; we are going to end up with a body of law made by one man; what if the next CJ is on the opposite side? We will be faced with the dilemma of either perpetuating injustice or overhauling the last 20 years of case law.
pardon my fundamental boo-boo on that one - but i do agree that when all decisions lie on one sole person, especially when that person in question has close ties with *ahem*, then there is potential for abuse of process..
but i think there is reason why there isnt a jury system in sg - imagine if judges here already apply their own subjective values to their judgment (not that they do) - what more a layperson - they are bound to go for their ‘gut’ feeling rather than for the principles of law, of which their understanding could be somewhat questionable as well.
i’m not too sure about your rationale being applicable to all aspects of criminal law though…what if, for example, a person is unsure whether what he is doing in public is a breach of the peace?
And I reckon in a perfect world there wouldn’t even be the need for a judiciary ? because all the laws are so clear-cut and watertight that there is no requirement to clear any ambiguities in the courts.
Of course this is impossible in the real world because laws commonly fail to catch directly the intricacies of individual cases and also fail to anticipate the advances of technology and other norms ? as you have raised, the fundamental contract concepts when applied on an online medium.
So the next best thing is for these courts to settle these ambiguities, by determining how the provisions are applied in real cases. But if interpretation is going to be different each time a new case comes to court then it is very unsatisfactory ? there will be no reliability of the doctrine of precedent or lawyers advice and journals etc.
Arguing on points of fact as opposed to law, so as to place one’s case within the ambit of a precedent, imho is more ideal.
Of course this must be qualified as well ? sometimes judges really do misinterpret or misapply the law.
And yes leaving it to 1-3 persons is highly unsatisfactory!
A,
I agree that Tommy Koh is undoubtedly a great lawyer. But the argument you made exactly makes my point. I would, for example, call you back because I have worked with you for 4 years in Cambridge and know you as a friend and as a professional. But I wouldn’t call a relatively young upstart to head the Judiciary just because University of Malaya decided to confer him a first class. Although I am defending the way the PM made his choice, it doe s not necessarily entail agreement with the choice.
I will mention that Thio’s 2003 article seems to put the annual wages of judges in a more realistic light - $347k (CJ), $253,200 (JA), $234, 600 (Sup Ct judges). She attributed these figures to the Judges Remuneration Act (Cap 147).
It’s a mixed reaction from me. I shall not and cannot pass judgment here, but I venture to make a few quick points. Besides the amount of damages for defamation suits I pointed out earlier, CJ’s appointment from a normal HC judge to the CJ post was in 1 year. His judgment in Jabar v PP didn’t help. Taking a communitarian stance is one thing, to say that the Judiciary is not concerned with whether the law is fair, just and reasonble so long as it is validly passed by Parliament seems to have ignored our written ROSC Art 4 and 93. It further lends weight to the stereotype that English trained lawyers of that time were not taught how to deal with written Constitutions. But he made decisions like Christopher Bridges and personally, I have never doubted his independence.
I agree with you that dissenting judgments are exceptional. I would venture to say that we do see a slow but upwards trend. See MPH Rubin on his views on ss 299, 300(c) Penal Code although he has retired, Chao JA in 2 CA cases involving land acquisition, Gilbert Luis where the CA overruled the CJ. With the renewal of ranks, we can only speculate how the the new culture will be, but I have faith (esp since you know who my vote for the next CJ goes to haha).
Okay. I can’t deny the force of your logic, since you have usefully brought us through the recent legal developments. Unfortunately, if you are right and the next CJ is who we think it will be, then it could be a mixed bag. Yes, some of his decisions have provided outstanding legal analysis, but the election box one will forever be a blip on his record. So well, it’s anyone’s guess from now on.
In any case, on account of the above words, I do expect that if some day if you become the PM, I will be considered for the post of CJ, notwithstanding the fact that I may be a jetsetting male escort/househusband then.
redrown: The jury decides questions of fact, the judge, points of law. As to why Singapore did away with jury trials escapes me for the moment; if I’m not wrong, LKY remarked on it in his memoirs.
This is a pretty invigorating discussion we have here; protracted, but nonetheless exciting.
Firstly, it is too easy to conflate legal certainty with expediency. The latter does not necessitate the former. In any case:
I concur. Although it is a much broader spectrum, imho. Think commercial cases, criminal cases (discussing points of substantive law), criminal cases (discussing points of evidence), public law cases, in ascending legal uncertainty. Of course, I speak as a disgruntled law student, don’t take my word for it.
ivan: I am aware of the presence of reverse burdens in the common law world. I’m not assuming the presumption of innocence is alive and thumping elsewhere; just asserting that comparatively, it is dead here. The Singapore cases don’t even mention it; whereas in the UK, there exists debate about the excessive statutory shifting of burdens.
A. and dc: down boys
Surely the more exciting question to ask know is who is the next CJ? My bet is on Chan.
A.: Hi adrian, you know me, I’m R’s third year friend. How are exams?
On the topic of needing to consider the constitutional role, welll.. Let’s just say its pretty damn hard without constitutional litigation. Take the average drug trafficking case; noone will think of pleading a breach of constitutional rights because it is seen as a last ditch effort. Nguyen’s lawyer has balls allright.
Will the death penalty go away? It depends on the US. Kan Ting Chiu left a nifty opening in Nguyen when he suggested that law in article 9 could import customary international law. If the US changes customary international law, who knows?
LOL
And since none of you here have even met me personally, I assume that I would probably end up wandering the world as an ‘Ambassador-at-large’.
nah… I’ll probably open a coffee-shop or something.
oh are you all talking about my favouritest lawyer Tommy Koh! *squeal. Anyway I think the major reason why he would never ever be considered for the CJ post is that if you put him there, you deprive Singapore of a great international lawyer. What Singapore, the world ah.
desse, R has several third year friends, so it’s not an easy guess. but if your name starts with D, and you are the pretty and smart one, then i have a good idea who you probably are
anyway, yup, dc and i think it will be chan. he seems the most likely choice, and certainly most qualified in terms of experience. tommy koh is too er, non-establishment to be considered, though the new paper pointed out lai j (?) ’s rapid rise through the ranks as a possible hint at his appointment.
exams are not good. i got a ridiculously bad grade for the public law assignment, so i m wondering whether you can help out since i recall you acing your public law module. and by ridiculous, i don’t even mean a C.
Clearly, we have a critical lot here. That’s always a good thing so long as we aren’t irresponsible with our criticisms.
I simply wish to point commentators and readers alike to the fact that the CJ does have reasons for concluding as he did. He sits on what usually is the final court of appeal for criminal issues. He grants leave for appeals. If he grants fewer appeals he believes that the lower courts are doing a fine job. That’s his view and he’s entitled to it as much as you’re entitled to yours.
With that said, being the law students that we are, we look for something normative. Something objective. Gilbert points out other possible causes for the fewer appeals. Plausible nonetheless. And i sense the third theory is one relating to diminishing returns. Can you really blame the practitioners? They usually give it their best shot at trial level. Appeals are stacked against the appellant. Pragmatism aside. As much as I agree with Gilbert that fewer appeals cannot be conclusive of rising quality in judgments, I think we’re not seeing it as our CJ sees it. And in my view, the CJ’s view is not wholly untenable.
And well there’s the issue of asset management. Civil appeals are more lucrative. This is to be subsumed under diminishing returns. Contreversial yes, implausible? Not really.
With regards to criminal law not needing certainty:
Has no one considered that uncertain flutuating laws despite being good could add a degree of uncertainty to the law? Especially if you consider a previously non-criminal offence (but ought to be criminal) being refined and interpreted as criminal. The R v R (marital rape) case in the UK has attract a hell lot of applause but yet still receive stinging criticism for possibly opening the flood gates to retroactivity (rule of law?).
Of course the opposite might be considered an unattractive position, a consistant application of bad law.
With regards to presumption of innocence:
It might be true that it relatively alive in the UK. However it is dying a gradual death. Debate on the excessive shifting of burdens has been limited to academics, and despite so 40% of cases trialed involves a reversal of burden. The Lords try to counteract this by reading an evidential burden where legal burdens used to exist (certainty?), yet where legal burdens have been applied the ECHR approve so (thus defeating the Lords argument that legal burden might cause the UK to fall foul of it’s ECHR obligations), we should also not forget that same Lords that stick to the ideals of innocence are the very same Lords that abhor idea gay rights (ie. decriminalising homosexual sex). The Lords. in the interest of the presumption of innocence, often adopt teteological methods and adjust their reasonings to best justify their stand. Is this desirable? Maybe, but imho definitely not when the dicta often proving to be flawed. A very common conclusion in the discussion of cases would that the ends justifies the means (is this ideal?).
Every legal system has it’s own flaws to take care of, there’s no pt saying that it’s dead here and alive there. More importantly is to acknowledge the pros our system has, and try to retain it whilst striving to refine the justic meted out.
Fascinating! Seems llike Sg judges are adopting the language of the Lordships.
For the US to change customary international law, it would first have to abolish the death penalty in it’s states first. Also, if i’m not wrong a breach by any party to an internation covenant would justify a breach by any other, does this apply to customary laws as well?
Lastly, from the track record of my comment in this blog, i’d end up a CSJ (touch wood).
As for the analysis of Kan J’s dicta. I don’t think it’s a simple matter of whether the US changes Customary International Law or not. Clearly, the judgment goes to say that Customary International Law is persuasive and applicable, but only so long as it does not contradict domestic laws.
So where there’s a void, then CIL is applicable. If no void, then domestic law reigns supreme. However, we must not undermine political diplomacy. Gilbert in his blog provides a succint and, in my view, accurate role of international law on domestic laws. Sometimes the law isn’t the best tool and we must accept that.
Ah. Soon I shall post again on SLMJD to share my thoughts on legal & evidential burdens, and various presumptions one way or the other.
Yup. I agree. It is not that simple, and I don’t think it will ever happen. It’s a tiny opening, and the only reason why I say he left it open is because the CA didn’t address the specific issue of how CIL can enter via the constitution. They simply said, oh death penalty is not CIL are you mad, then they went on to talk about hanging as a cruel and unusual punishment.
It’s just technically fascinating. If law in art.9 can mean CIL, and the content of the CIL suddenly includes the rule against the death penalty, it becomes constitutionalised and trumps the statute. Of course, technically fascinating, but dangerous. Should the judiciary dabble in international law? As a matter of hierarchy, it is hard to see why judges should influence the executive’s treaty-making powers by reading CIL into the constitution. I don’t agree with it; I don’t even know whether Kan J. realises what he did. This matter of CIL via the constitution is currently heavily debated in the US.
Again, I agree that only the executive should determine matters of foreign policy. But it can be hard to separate matters of law from foreign policy. Also, what happens if the piece of international law is jus cogens?
Gilbert: if only you posted it before I took my paper :). Ah well, I didn’t do the question. I stupidly. did. hearsay.
A.: Hahah yes it starts with a D. Thank you for your compliments, but I don’t know how much use I will be for public (I think you typed precedent fact earlier and I was like whhaa..Ohhh). Don’t worry about the assignment grade it’s only 30%. Did CL give any hints about what might come out? He usually sets the horrible technical questions. Anyway, you can email me questions if you want..
Han.: sorry about hijacking your comments like that! Did you predict this many comments when you posted?
desse:
Hey, I’m loving it! I don’t see any hijacking at all!
And what’s the point of having this post if not for the discussion? The fact is I’m learning so much from you guys because you all have left your opinions here.
Hmmm… I didn’t find hearsay to be too difficult. My evidence lecturer (who’s a hotshot barrister here in Victoria) made it quite easy for us to understand:
Did you guys read Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1965] 1 WLR 965?
To everyone else:
The thing is, Gilbert says we all sound confused. And I have to say, I certainly am started to feel confused. I’ve already done the law of evidence and although I didn’t have excellent grades, I think I didn’t do too badly, and I certainly don’t recall feeling confused then…
He says here that:
And I believe that what he says is exactly the truth! I mean, the exam I had to take for evidence places you in the position of the prosecution, and one has to first come up with a case theory, and then a legal theory on how to prove the case. Basically 50% of the marks go towards playing Sherlock Holmes and 50% of the marks go towards knowledge of the law with regards to admissibility.
And so, I think what Gilbert says is right. At each stage, you face only a few, manageable questions. The big picture sort of falls in place by itself later on.
Anybody wants to take a look at my Evidence exam paper[PDF]?
Completely out of point, but I had a look at your Friendster page after you added me this morning, and maybe I should have headed out to Melbourne. If your Melbourne female friends are anything to by, the place seems to be teeming with babes. Incredible. Haha.
Anyway, how many years will you be there for? I am hoping to visit Melbourne in summer 2006, before my final year and after exchange.
And desse, no, LCL did not give any tips at all. His tutorials are merely discussions, so I presume we are supposed to do that in an exam as well. He was the one who marked my essay haha (I think). Don’t think Han is surprised any longer at the number of comments; he got 100 over for the CZ one. And the most I got was 65, and that was from people who hated me haha.
A:
Come on down man, you won’t regret it
And when you say Summer 2006, do you mean Northern Hemisphere Summer (June-July 2006) or Southern Hemisphere Summer (Dec 2006-Feb 2007)?
I should be finishing at the end of 2006, but I could very well end up doing the Summer in Feb 2007, as some specific subjects I’m looking to may not be offered in the normal semesters…
So let me know if you’re heading down here. I could show you around.
Gilbert posted his first scenario up here.
Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified: The First Scenario
I just wish to make a comment about the drawing of adverse inferences against an accused to chooses not to testify, and the common law privilege against self-incrimination (which I know varies in degree in the different common law jurisdictions).
EPA v Caltex (1993) 178 CLR 477
Mason CJ & Toohey J - (para 33)
Brennan J - (para 10)
I understand that the law of Australia is not the law in Singapore. But then I also believe that there are some things which civilised societies do not do. As a matter of simple human decency, I think making an accused confront that ‘cruel trilemma’ is not something that enlightened human beings should do.
I found an interesting article from some time back. You guys might like want to have a read and see what you think. Here[PDF].
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] ry exciting discussion of the Singapore judicial system over at the Wannabe Lawyer’s latest post.. rarrrhh! There should be more of [...]