DOCSLIB.ORG

I Support International Bridges to Justice. I Believe Very Fervently That

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I Support International Bridges to Justice. I Believe Very Fervently That 2010 Bridges/Annual Report of International Bridges to Justice I support International Bridges to Justice. I believe very fervently that the accused have rights, and we must do everything we can to stop torture being used as an investigative tool. These people,the accused, are not guilty until they are proven so. They are innocent until they are proven to be guilty, and so I would commend every right thinking person to support International Bridges to Justice. Desmond Tutu 1 International Bridges to Justice is dedicated to ensuring the basic legal rights of ordinary individuals throughout the world. Specifically, IBJ works to guarantee everyone the right to competent legal representation, the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment and the right to a fair trial. Contents Message from the CEO 1 IBJ’s Model 2 Help IBJ End Torture 3 JusticeMakers 4 Country Programs: Cambodia 8 China 10 India 12 Burundi 14 Rwanda 16 Zimbabwe 18 64 rue de Monthoux eLearning 19 CH-1201, Geneva, Switzerland IBJ in Singapore 20 Message from the Chairman 22 [email protected] Financial Report 23 Governance 24 Phone: +41(0).22.731.24.41 Staff & Consultants 26 Fax: +41(0).22.731.24.83 Volunteers 26 2010 Donors 27 www.ibj.org F OUNDER ’ S V ISION Celebrating Ten Extraordinary Years It was with gratitude for ing countries: Rwanda and being the rule but rather an hub, the Singapore Justice the abundance of your faith Burundi, post-conflict states exception. Training Centre. We also and support that in 2010 we that are scarred by genocide, We have implemented established the Legal Training celebrated the tenth anniver- and Zimbabwe, which was other pioneering initia- Resource Center, offering sary of International Bridges at the peak of overwhelming tives, most notably our defense attorneys web-based to Justice. political and economic insta- JusticeMakers program. courses, and the Criminal What began in China, bility when we entered. Following the three on- Defense Wiki, the first Wiki where we have now estab- In nearly all these ven- line competitions we have dedicated exclusively to global lished regional defender tures, we moved forward conducted since 2008, we criminal defense practice. resource centers, distrib- against the initial advice of have provided funding for While IBJ’s accomplish- uted nearly a million rights- many who were certain we innovative criminal justice ments have been many, none awareness posters with the would fail. We did so out of reform projects undertaken could have occurred without Ministry of Justice’s logo, and a firm belief that the needs by 33 JusticeMakers Fellows the incredible support of trained thousands of lawyers are greatest in countries like from 25 countries and built all of us defenders, donors, and police, was followed these. We are grateful for a global platform utilized volunteers, staff, board by another major first – a your leap of faith with us, by over 6,000 lawyers and members, and supporters defense skills training for allowing us to work with human rights defenders. We working together to bring this 200 lawyers in Vietnam. We defenders throughout the have piloted an exchange pro- message of hope to the world. then began a program in world to kindle the flame gram called “Communities Standing with us, having the Cambodia, the country that against darkness. of Conscience”, in which de- courage to see the reality of inspired me to start IBJ after Cambodia perhaps best fense lawyers from developed the situation and the leader- my encounter with a 12-year- exemplifies how far we have countries provide training, ship to move beyond and see old boy in pre-trial detention come in such a short period mentoring, and support to the possibility, you have had for stealing a bicycle. of time. As the only NGO defense lawyers from develop- the prophetic imagination Our next foray was into there focused exclusively ing countries. I have been to create the IBJ that exists India, where we conducted on criminal legal aid work, astonished by the very real today. the first national defense IBJ now represents indigent and tangible progress that Thank you for being an training in partnership with defendants in 13 out of is possible when sparked by indispensable part of IBJ’s the government’s legal aid Cambodia’s 24 provinces. In mentoring support and even first ten years. I know that in authority, reaching legal aid three provinces where IBJ has small amounts of financial the next ten years, with the lawyers in all 28 states. Soon legal aid centers, Takeo, Prey capital. wholehearted commitment thereafter, we expanded IBJ’s Veng and Pursat, investigative Capitalizing on the power of all of us, we will bring the programming into three torture today is almost 100 of our networks, in 2010, dream of legal protection for of Africa’s most challeng- percent eliminated, no longer we opened our first regional all to fruition. “We are grateful for your leap of faith with us, allowing us to work with defenders throughout the world to kindle the flame against darkness.” IBJ CEO and Founder Karen Tse 1 I BJ’ S M ODEL Ending Torture in the 21st Century Implementing a more humane vision of criminal justice is best accomplished with cooperation from the entire legal community. In countries throughout defenders and legal rights Criminal Justice tation and enhances societal the world, systematic human advocates to support the Roundtables understanding of the impor- rights abuses disguised as work of defense attorneys in Implementing a more tance of defense attorneys, routine criminal processes developing countries. In each humane vision of criminal jus- increasing public support are a daily reality. The indig- of its country programs, IBJ tice is best accomplished with for their work. IBJ employs a nities suffered by countless works at both the national cooperation from the entire variety of media platforms to individuals accused of crimes level, influencing decision- legal community. To promote raise awareness, from posters amount to a colossal injustice makers to institute system- mutual respect among the to radio broadcasts. hidden in plain sight. wide reforms, and on the different stakeholders, IBJ Despite the strides many local level, where IBJ fosters regularly convenes roundtable Defender Resource countries have made in grassroots transformation meetings where defense law- Centers and Legal recent years towards formal through trainings, criminal yers, police, prison officials, Services recognition of international justice roundtables, public prosecutors, and judges can The Defender Resource criminal justice conventions, awareness campaigns, and the engage with one another and Centers (DRCs) are IBJ’s domestic laws purporting to provision of legal services to identify common ground. principal vehicle for achiev- safeguard defendants’ rights the indigent accused through Representatives from local ing transformative change. are all but toothless, absent Defender Resource Centers. government, community Serving as the centers of effective enforcement. IBJ members, and legal academics IBJ’s in-country activities, believes that skilled defense Trainings are also invited. By providing the DRCs enable IBJ to attorneys, equipped with IBJ’s most basic func- a forum for these parties to complement its legal de- adequate training and sup- tion is to increase defender communicate constructively, fense trainings with mentor- port, are the key to unlocking capacity. There simply are IBJ fosters institutional un- ing and one-on-one case the full potential of criminal not enough skilled defense derstanding of the role that consultations, opportunities justice reforms. attorneys available to provide defense attorneys play in the for networking and skill- adequate representation to development of a functioning sharing, and the provision Mission everyone accused of a crime. criminal justice system. of technical support for International Bridges to Nor is there the necessary in- defense lawyers. Justice is dedicated to ensur- frastructure to support their Rights Awareness The DRCs also operate ing the basic legal rights of work. To address these short- Campaigns as community legal centers – ordinary individuals around falls, IBJ provides training to Knowledge is a powerful the first place to go for those the world. Specifically, IBJ new and experienced crimi- tool in the fight for human seeking help for themselves works to guarantee every per- nal defense attorneys, both rights. By equipping ordinary or accused family mem- son the right to competent increasing the number of individuals with awareness of bers. Through the DRCs, legal representation, the right lawyers taking criminal cases their legal rights, IBJ greatly IBJ-trained lawyers take to be protected from cruel and improving each lawyer’s increases the likelihood that hundreds of cases annually, and unusual punishment, ability to provide competent they will assert their rights increasing access to justice and the right to a fair trial. representation. IBJ also trains if arrested. By publicizing for the indigent accused and other actors within the justice the role that lawyers play in strengthening the country’s Theory of Change system, such as police, prison protecting the accused from pro bono culture. Thus, IBJ’s mission is global in officials, and judges, in best illegal detention and torture, they provide a model for the scope, marshaling a world- practices for safeguarding the IBJ encourages individual de- implementation of a properly wide community of public rights of the accused. fendants to demand represen- functioning legal aid system. 2 Two Burundian children on International Day Against Torture Photo courtesy of Nathalie Mohadjer HELP IBJ END TORTURE We ask for your commitment to help in what- Make a Tax-Deductible Donation There is no faster way to add resources to IBJ’s efforts than a financial ever way you can. We need assistance with contribution. IBJ offers a variety of ways for individual, corporate, and institutional donors to support our efforts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Criminal Procedure Code 2010
    (2011) 23 SAcLJ Modernising the Criminal Justice Framework 23 MODERNISING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 The concept of “balancing” prevalent in criminal justice discourse is premised on a paradigm where “state” and “individual” interests are perpetually in conflict. This article outlines the key components of the new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and discusses another dimension of the state- individual relationship. Rather than being inherently incompatible, synergistic common goals can, on occasion, be pursued between the State and an accused. The article will also consider areas in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 where conflicts between “state” and “individual” interests have in fact arisen, and will outline the pragmatic approach that has been adopted towards their resolution. Melanie CHNG* LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (Harvard); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore); Assistant Director, Ministry of Law. The criminal process is at the heart of the criminal justice system. It is not only a subject of great practical importance; it is also a reflection of our ideals and values as to the way in which we can accord justice to both the guilty and to the innocent.[1] I. Introduction 1 The recent legislative amendments to Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) signify a new chapter in the continuing evolution of Singapore’s criminal justice process. The new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“New CPC”),2 which came into force on * The opinions expressed in this article are those of its author and are not representative of the official position or policies of the Singapore government. The author is grateful to Mr Amarjeet Singh SC, Ms Jennifer Marie SC, Mr Bala Reddy, Professor Michael Hor, Mr Subhas Anandan, Ms Valerie Thean and Mr Desmond Lee for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Goh Chok Tong V Chee Soon Juan [2003] SGHC 79
    Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan [2003] SGHC 79 Case Number : Suit 1460/2001 Decision Date : 04 April 2003 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : MPH Rubin J Counsel Name(s) : Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar and Nicolas Tang (Drew & Napier LLC) for the plaintiff/respondent; Defendant/appellant in person Parties : Goh Chok Tong — Chee Soon Juan Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Defence – Particulars of defence of duress not pleaded – Effect on defendant's case Civil Procedure – Summary judgment – Whether to set aside summary judgment and grant defendant leave to defend claim – Whether defendant had real or bona fide defence Contract – Discharge – Breach – Whether intimidation a defence to breach of contract of compromise Contract – Duress – Illegitimate pressure – Whether threat to enforce one's legal rights could amount to duress Tort – Defamation – Defamatory statements – Republication – Words republished by mass media – Whether defendant liable for republication Tort – Defamation – Defamatory statements – Whether defamatory in natural and ordinary meaning or by way of innuendo 1 This was an appeal by Dr Chee Soon Juan to judge-in-chambers from the decision of Senior Assistant Registrar Mr Toh Han Li (‘the SAR’) granting interlocutory judgment with damages (including aggravated damages) to be assessed in a defamation action brought by the respondent, Mr Goh Chok Tong. Mr Goh is, and was at all material times, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore. On 25 October 2001, Mr Goh, as a candidate of the People’s Action Party (‘PAP’), was returned unopposed as a Member of Parliament for Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (‘GRC’) in the 2001 General Elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Corrigé Uncorrected
    Non-Corrigé Uncorrected CR 2007/30 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2007 Public sitting held on Thursday 22 November 2007, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President, presiding in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) ________________ VERBATIM RECORD ________________ ANNÉE 2007 Audience publique tenue le jeudi 22 novembre 2007, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour) ____________________ COMPTE RENDU ____________________ - 2 - Present: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President Judges Shi Koroma Parra-Aranguren Buergenthal Owada Simma Tomka Abraham Keith Sepúlveda-Amor Bennouna Skotnikov Judges ad hoc Dugard Sreenivasa Rao Registrar Couvreur ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 - Présents : M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l’affaire MM. Shi Koroma Parra-Aranguren Buergenthal Owada Simma Tomka Abraham Keith Sepúlveda-Amor Bennouna Skotnikov, juges MM. Dugard Sreenivasa Rao, juges ad hoc M. Couvreur, greffier ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 - The Government of Malaysia is represented by: H.E. Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Ambassador-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, Adviser for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister, as Agent; H.E. Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin, Ambassador of Malaysia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Co-Agent; H.E. Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney-General of Malaysia, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, C.B.E., Q.C., Honorary Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Prosecutor V Tan Kheng Chun
    Public Prosecutor v Tan Kheng Chun Ray [2011] SGHC 183 Case Number : Criminal Case No 6 of 2011 Decision Date : 04 August 2011 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Gordon Oh and Peggy Pao (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution; Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong) for the accused. Parties : Public Prosecutor — Tan Kheng Chun Ray Criminal Law [LawNet Editorial Note: The appeal to this decision in Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2011 was allowed by the Court of Appeal on 28 November 2011. See [2012] SGCA 10.] 4 August 2011 Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 The accused, Ray Tan Kheng Chun pleaded guilty to seven charges [note: 1] for drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185 2008 Rev Ed). 2 The seven offences are: Charge 1 Importing not less than 14.99 grams of diamorphine. Charge 2 Importing not less than 1.12 grams of methamphetamine. Charge 3 Consumption of methamphetamine. Charge 4 Possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 5 Possession of another lot of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 6 Possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 7 Possession of three tablets of nimetazepam. The offences in Charges 1 to 5 took place on 10 October 2009. The offences in Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5 took place at the Woodlands Checkpoint, and the drug consumption offence in Charge 3, took place in Malaysia. The offences in Charges 6 and 7 took place on 11 October 2009 at the accused’s residence at No 1 Queensway, #08-63, Queensway Tower, Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Without Complicity
    Doing without complicity Article (Published Version) Sullivan, G R (2012) Doing without complicity. Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law (2). pp. 199-231. ISSN 2047-0452 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/46737/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk JOURNAL OF COMMONWEALTH CRIMINAL LAW EDITOR JAMES RICHARDSON Q.C., LL.B., LL.M., DIP. CRIM. of Gray’s Inn, and the Inner Temple, Barrister EDITORIAL BOARD ANDREW ASHWORTH C.B.E., Q.C., D.C.L., F.B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Prosecutor V Lim Ah Seng [2007]
    Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Seng [2007] SGHC 40 Case Number : CC 18/2006 Decision Date : 26 March 2007 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Sundaresh Menon JC Counsel Name(s) : Edwin San and Jason Chan (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the Attorney- General's Chambers; Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (Harry Elias Partnership) for the accused Parties : Public Prosecutor — Lim Ah Seng Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing – Principles – Accused strangling wife during fight – Accused victim of repeated physical and psychological abuse from wife – Accused pleading guilty to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Accused suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome – Appropriate sentence – Section 304(b) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) 26 March 2007 Judgment reserved Sundaresh Menon JC: 1 Every killing is utterly tragic; but this does not mean that every killer is to be punished in the same way. The law recognises this and it is reflected in the various defences available to a murder charge and in the highly differentiated scheme of sentencing prescribed for a range of offences from a mandatory death penalty for intentional killing to a maximum term of imprisonment of two years for causing death by rash or negligent acts. In the context of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the circumstances of each killing may be so varied that any attempt to prescribe the precise sentence in vacuo would be futile. Even with a growing body of case law that provides much useful guidance, sentencing calls for the sound exercise of judicial discretion, taking into account the specific factual complexion of each case, including the ambient circumstances of the offence and the offender.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Publication of the Law Society of Singapore | August 2016
    Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore | August 2016 Thio Shen Yi, Senior Counsel President The Law Society of Singapore A RoadMAP for Your Journey The 2016 Mass Call to the Bar will be held this month on 26 Modern psychology tells us employees are not motivated and 27 August over three sessions in the Supreme Court. by their compensation – that’s just a hygiene factor. Pay Over 520 practice trainees will be admitted to the roll of mustn’t be an issue in that it must be fair, and if there is a Advocates & Solicitors. differential with their peers, then ceteris paribus, it cannot be too significant. Along with the Chief Justice, the President of the Law Society has the opportunity to address the new cohort. I Instead, enduring motivation is thought to be driven by three had the privilege of being able to do so last year in 2015, elements, mastery, autonomy, and purpose. There’s some and will enjoy that same privilege this year. truth in this, even more so in the practice of law, where we are first and foremost, members of an honourable The occasion of speaking to new young lawyers always profession. gives me pause for thought. What can I say that will genuinely add value to their professional lives? Making Mastery: The challenge and opportunity to acquire true motherhood statements is as easy as it is pointless. They expertise. There is a real satisfaction in being, and becoming, are soon forgotten, even ignored, assuming that they are really good at something. Leading a cross-border deal heard in the first place.
    [Show full text]
  • 9789814677813
    SUBHA THE BEST I COULDFor Review onlyNATIONAL BESTSELLER Subhas Anandan (1947–2015) was undoubtedly Singapore’s best-known S criminal lawyer. From taking on Singapore’s most infamous cases, such as those A of Anthony Ler, Took Leng How and Ah Long San, to espousing his views on NANDAN the mandatory death sentence and police entrapment, Subhas Anandan became the face of criminal defence in Singapore. But why did he choose to represent clients who were to all intents and purposes guilty? And were the criminals he represented the monsters they were made out to be? Part (auto) biography and part log of Singapore’s criminal history, The Best I Could is a candid, at times brutally honest rendition of the boy, the man, the lawyer and the mentor who would ultimately become the voice of Singapore’s underdogs and unwanted. The THE BES book is a journey through dusty jail cells, dramatic courtrooms and the minds of some of the most high-profile criminals to date. At the end of a sometimes emotional ride, underneath his signature public scowl is a heart that is truly made of gold. We are privileged to have him as a colleague and a mentor to our younger colleagues. “Even the most heinous — Tan Chong Huat, Managing Partner, KhattarWong (2009) offender deserves The Best I Could provides a good insight into the criminal mind. Subhas narrates some a proper trial.” of the island’s most heinous crimes and the criminals behind them. Some of the characters are as fascinating as the author himself, and Subhas shows there is some good in the worst of them.
    [Show full text]
  • ENHANCING “ACCESS to JUSTICE” a Very Good Morning Prof Simon
    KEYNOTE ADDRESS OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE 2013 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE (17 MAY 2013) ENHANCING “ACCESS TO JUSTICE” A very good morning Prof Simon Chesterman, Dean, NUS Faculty of Law Students, Friends, Ladies & Gentlemen Introduction 1. I am delighted to be here this morning to deliver the keynote address for the second Criminal Justice Conference. A Conference such as this is of particular significance as it serves as a vital platform to discuss some of the more pressing issues pertaining to the criminal justice process and the values that underpin it. Such discussions are both essential and important because, in many ways, the principles and ideals that underpin our criminal justice system also form the foundational ethical building blocks of our society. I accept the reality that each of our individual points of view are informed by our respective perspectives and experiences, and much like any debate informed by a multitude of equally well-reasoned and legitimate views, there is unlikely to be unanimity on the direction the law should be headed, or whether the ideas propounded by the various speakers in this Conference ought to inform the shape of the criminal justice system in the years to come. 2. Be that as it may, I am positive that most would agree with the basic proposition that we must all aim to further the goal of providing “access to justice”. Indeed, the intuitively unobjectionable nature of the proposition is not lost on the Conference organizers this year, who have dedicated the entire first day’s proceedings to this very topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Vijay S/O Katherasan and Others V Public Prosecutor
    Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGCA 33 Case Number : Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2008 Decision Date : 03 September 2010 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; V K Rajah JA; Choo Han Teck J Counsel Name(s) : James Bahadur Masih (James Masih & Co) and Amarick Singh Gill (Amarick Gill & Co) for the first appellant; Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong) for the second appellant; Mohamed Muzammil bin Mohamed (Muzammil & Co) and Allagarsamy s/o Palaniyappan (Allagarsamy & Co) for the third appellant; S Jennifer Marie, David Khoo, Ng Yong Kiat Francis and Ong Luan Tze (Attorney- General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others — Public Prosecutor Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing [LawNet Editorial Note: This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court in [2008] SGHC 120.] 3 September 2010 Judgment reserved. Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This is an appeal by the first appellant, Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan (“Daniel”), and the second appellant, Christopher Samson s/o Anpalagan (“Christopher”), against the decision of the trial judge (“the Judge”) convicting them of murder in Criminal Case No 16 of 2007 (see Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others [2008] SGHC 120 (“the GD”)). The third appellant, Nakamuthu Balakrishnan (alias Bala) (“Bala”), originally appealed as well against his conviction for murder, but subsequently decided not to proceed with his appeal (see [46]–[47] below). For convenience, we shall hereafter refer to the three appellants collectively as “the Appellants”.
    [Show full text]
  • Pathip Selvan S/O Sugumaran V Public Prosecutor
    Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 44 Case Number : Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2010 Decision Date : 15 August 2012 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong LLP) for the appellant; David Khoo and Dennis Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran — Public Prosecutor Criminal Law [LawNet Editorial Note: The decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2011] 2 SLR 329.] 15 August 2012 V K Rajah JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This is a tragic case of a young couple who had a bittersweet relationship that culminated in a homicide. The appellant, Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran (“the accused”), caused the death of Jeevitha d/o Panippan (“the deceased”) on 7 July 2008 by stabbing her repeatedly all over her body. The multiple injuries caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He now appeals against the decision of the trial judge (“the Judge”), who found him guilty of murder. The Judge rejected all the accused’s defences, found that he had committed an offence under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) and imposed the mandatory death penalty. Background The parties 2 The accused was 22 years old at the time of the offence. He has three siblings; an older brother, a younger brother and a younger sister. His parents were divorced when he was only five years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Phang Wah and Others V Public Prosecutor
    Phang Wah and others v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGHC 251 Case Number : Magistrate's Appeal Nos 251, 252 and 253 of 2010 Decision Date : 21 November 2011 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Tay Yong Kwang J Counsel Name(s) : Subhas Anandan (RHT Law LLP) and Foo Cheow Ming and Low Cheong Yeow (Khattar Wong) for Phang and Neo; Philip Fong Yeng Fatt and Jasmin Kaur (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) for Hoo; Aedit Abdullah, Siva Shanmugam and April Phang Suet Fern (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the prosecution. Parties : Phang Wah and others — Public Prosecutor Criminal Law – Companies 21 November 2011 Judgment reserved. Tay Yong Kwang J: 1 This case involved three separate appeals from the district court by the three accused persons and the corresponding cross-appeals by the prosecution. They arose from matters related to the business of Sunshine Empire Pte Ltd (“Sunshine Empire”). For convenience, I will identify the accused persons in the order in which they were identified in the court below. 2 Phang Wah (“Phang”) and Jackie Hoo Choon Cheat (“Hoo”) were charged with one charge under s 340(5) read with s 340(1) of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (the “s 340 charge”) as well as with eight charges under ss 409 read with 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (the “s 409 charges”). Phang and his wife, Neo Kuon Huay (“Neo”), were tried for six charges under s 477A read with s 109 of the Penal Code (the “s 477A charges”). Where appropriate, Phang, Hoo and Neo are referred to as the “appellants”.
    [Show full text]