Lawyers' association explains stand on AGC's discretion
THE Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) supports the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran versus Attorney-General ('Apex court clears air on A-G's power'; Jan 11), both on principle and on authority.
ACLS believes that given the nature and width of the prosecutorial discretion vested in the Attorney-General by Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the view that the Attorney-General should explain how he exercises his discretion is misplaced.
There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. That element of trust is institutionalised in the Constitution of Singapore. Without such faith and trust, the legal system in our country will not work effectively and efficiently.
While ACLS would defend and protect the rights of all accused persons as it should, it also recognises that the protection of the innocent should be of paramount importance in the criminal justice system.
Our criminal justice system has numerous forms of checks and balances to ensure that no one person has unfettered discretion. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion involves numerous layers of internal review. There would be no end to matters if every single decision is questioned excessively. However, it is clear that meritorious cases will be reviewed by the court should the need arise.
The fact remains that it is Parliament which needs to legislate such change if the people demand change. In the meantime, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) must continue to carry out its duties pursuant to the Constitution. ACLS trusts in this.
Subhas Anandan
President
Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore
Isn't the issue that the public needs to know the details as how it is decided the Prosecution decides what charge is to be made against the accused that is the core point? And the Lawyers' Association supports the idea that everyone should just trust the system? Hellooo?
For those who want a quick background on the case, this is about how one man, Ramalingam Ravinthran, was charged with a capital crime, while his co-accused, had a non-capital crime charged against him. Both men committed the same crime. There lies the issue. Ramalingam's defence asks why was his charge not lowered too.
Related links here:
Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?
AG's explanation on Ramalingam's case unconvincing
Isn't the real issue about the Mandatory Death Sentence, which AGC is grappling with? -
You don't need to be a legal expert to sense that this double standard, where two men are charged differently for the same crime, is due to the fact that the Prosecution was trying hard to allow Ramalingam's co-accused to escape the Mandatory Death Sentence. You see, the co-accused has an IQ of only 68.
There lies the problem of the Mandatory Death Sentence for Drug Trafficking. I am against the Mandatory Death Sentence. This is not to be confused with the Death Sentence itself.
If the co-accused is charged with a capital crime like Ramalingam, and if he is found guilty, he would be hanged to death. That's because hanging is mandatory. So in all probability, in order not to have him hanged, the co-accused had his charge reduced.
But this of course triggers the question why was Ramalingim's charge not reduced, when both committed same crime.
Many side issues on the Ramalingam case -
There are many side issues in this unique case. In summary they are:
1. The prerogative of the Prosecution to decide what charge, and more importantly, its non obligation to tell the public or even the defence, why it is decided on that charge, does not bode well for the work towards transparency. The AGC talks as if the prosecutional authority is his god-given right.
2. The ACLS has shown itself, like the NTUC, to be nothing more than a lapdog of the govt. It shows it is not an institution to protect the rights of citizens.
3. The Singapore Govt, in this case the Judiciary, is showing the world it rather worms its way out of the controversial Mandatory Death Sentence, than addressing the issue itself.
4. Most importantly, I feel the anti-Death Penalty campaigners goofed this one big time, contesting Ramalingam's charge by questioning its legality citing the Constitution. The govt will NEVER touch the constitution. What the lobbyists should have done was to argue Ramalingam's case on its own merits and ask for a reduced charge. By citing the constitution, the Courts simply hardened their stand.
My Final Word -
If not for the tragedy that Ramalingam would be hanged, all this certainly looks like one big circus with the govt, NGOs and some anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists performing for the world to see their comical act.
Why all this loopy explanation and act, when the issue is about transparency and the right for the public to know how the Prosecution comes to the decision on what the charge should be?
0 comments:
Post a Comment