ST Nov 3, 2006
More time for 3 accused to view police video
THE hearing against Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and two others for speaking in public without a permit was adjourned yesterday to give them more time to view a police video of their actions.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng yesterday provided DVD copies of the police recording to Chee, SDP member Gandhi Ambalam and party supporter Yap Keng Ho.
The recording, which was made on two digital video tapes, was screened in the courtroom on Wednesday. It showed the trio speaking in a public space in Yishun on April 22 this year.
Chee and Ambalam yesterday told Judge Eddy Tham in the Subordinate Courts that they were ready to cross-examine new witnesses. But Yap said he wanted more time to view his copy of the video evidence before the trial continued.
Judge Tham adjourned proceedings for a day to give Yap the necessary time to review his DVD, and also to allow DPP Lee to amend a transcript of the recording, which will be given to the defendants today.
The trial continues today.
03 November 2006
So Let's Wait & See What Happens Next.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
How come they need to see a video of themselves making a public speech in a public place, in order to know that they were making a public speech in a public place? Bizarre.
CSJ: Let's get on with the trial
2 Nov 06
Dr Chee Soon Juan told the Court today he was ready to continue with the case. He did not object to the video recording being used in court after copies were given to the Defendants.
DPP Lee Lit Cheng had refused to provide to the Defendants copies of the video recording she wanted to admit as evidence in the trial.
Dr Chee is charged together with Mr Gandhi Ambalam and Mr Yap Keng Ho with speaking in public without a licence while the SDP was out campaigning and selling their flagship publication The New Democrat during the period of the elections in May this year.
Mr Ambalam also agreed to carry on with the trial but reserved his right to question the videographer after he had viewed the copy of the recording.
Mr Yap Keng Ho requested for more time to view the tape and to prepare his case. He was given the rest of today to do that.
The Defendants have repeatedly stated their stand that they were happy to face the charges but insisted that the Prosecution not be given free rein to do as it pleases in court.
They had found out that one of the police witnesses was present in the courtroom while other witnesses were giving evidence.
After they took DPP Lee Lit Cheng to task on the matter, she quickly changed tack and offered to admit the video as evidence. The Prosecution had hitherto refused to use the video evidence.
Even after she changed her mind, she arrogantly refused to give the Defendants copies of the recording, citing that they had “no legal right” to them. The Judge said, however, that the Defendants needed to be given the copies.
After a week of huffing and puffing, the trial is no further along than when it started on the first day.
Dr Chee told the Court that the antics of the Prosecution have led to one whole week of delays. If the video evidence had been used right from the beginning the trial would have concluded by now.
He reiterated that he was prepared to move forward expeditiously and to get to the bottom of the charge at hand.
Hearing continues tomorrow at 9:30 am.
Some of you may think Chee is nothing but a troublemaker, a political and social pariah...
... but what he is doing now is to rescue whatever's left of the democratic institutions in Singapore, especially the judiciary.
Don't base your opinions of him from the impressions you got from articles published in the 146th. That's foolishness.
No wonder he wants to end up in court. That would be his chance to help save the judiciary.
Oh, and I'm sure different people would interpret the above sentence in a number of different ways.
interestingly up to this point, only anonymous were making comments.
in keeping with the trend.
moomooman
Yet another boo-boo by the Prosecution
3 Nov 06
Mr Gandhi Ambalam pointed out in court today that copy of the video recording used by the Prosecution in the on-going trial had been "doctored."
He, together with Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Yap Keng Ho, are charged with speaking in public without a permit during the elections period in May this year.
Mr Ambalam played the DVD copy which showed a still frame of Dr Chee holding a microphone and copies of The New Democrat at the start of the video. The picture was not present in the original copy of the videotape that was played in court.
Judge Eddy Tham noted the anomaly when he viewed the DVD copies of the recording.
"I'm not afraid to be charged and to go to prison," Mr Ambalam reiterated. "But, at least, the Prosecution should be gentlemanly and not resort to such nonsense.
"I'm just tired of all this. Why don't we dispense with video evidence and you can just sentence us now by summary judgement?" he told the Judge.
DPP Lee Lit Cheng had originally resisted giving the Defendants copies of the recording. But Mr Ambalam and Dr Chee said that they would refuse to participate in the proceedings if the copies were withheld. The Judge finally directed the DPP to give the Defendants the copies.
DPP Lee had assured that the DVDs were accurate copies of the original tape. She could not, however, explain the discrepancy between the original and duplicate versions.
She told the Court that she would check with Criminal Investigations Department officers who had made the copies.
This was the latest in a series of bungles by the Prosecution. A police witness was caught present in the courtroom while other officers were tendering their evidence.
The second occurred at the beginning of the trial when the DPP had refused to admit the video as evidence (she had during the pre-trial conference indicated that the Prosecution would use the video) only to make a reversal half-way through the proceedings.
Dr Chee then said that he had not contested the validity of the copies because he had accepted the DPP's assurance that the copies were faithful replicas of the original version.
He expressed regret at this latest incident and said that he hoped that the matter can be resolved quickly so that the trial can proceed without further mishaps on the part of the Prosecution.
It was also revealed that the tapes had passed through the hands of five officers, two of whom held the rank of Deputy Superintendents (DSP).
One of them, Mr Chua Teck Wah, said that the only reason he was in possession of the tape was because he was making copies.
Mr Yap then asked the DSP: "Witness, you hold a very senior rank. Why did you have to do such a job of making copies of the video?"
DSP Chua sheepishly replied that he "happened to be the only one" who knew how to operate the duplicating machine.
He had made these copies at 12 noon on 22 Apr 06, that is, immediately after the recording of the tape that morning.
Another DSP, Mr Lawrence Eng who is Head Investigations in Ang Mo Kio Police Division, indicated that he had put the tape in his safe.
Asked by Dr Chee whether any of the copies had been handed to people other than police officers, Judge Tham quickly stepped in and ruled that the question was irrelevant.
(In 1997, then prime minister Mr Goh Chok Tong admitted in court that a copy of the police report that Mr Tang Lian Hong made against PAP leaders during the general elections was given to Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng. A defamation suit was then launched against Mr Tang by 11 PAP leaders.)
Hearing continues on Monday at 9:30 am.
http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/2006/11/public-entertainment-by-kangaroo.html
Public Entertainment by Kangaroo Circus
SDP's news informed the public that the famiLEE LEEgime's prosecution wasted entire week of trail time, and after much saga arrived back as the very beginning point, just exactly as it was on the very first day of trial.
I just want to assert my opions in addition to SDP's news release here.
The famiLEE LEEgime originally in Pre-Trial Conference months ago wanted to use video evidence, and our lawyer then - Mr Ravi asked for a copy of this video, the famiLEE LEEgime prosecution agreed. But as the trial began, they changed their mind for 1st time, to say that they then don't want to use that evidence and refuse to give a copy to us.
The video matter came in to argument at the begining of trial, and at that time I personally made an application to the judge to admit the video as evidence and give us copy of it. The LEEgime prosecutor again refused to give, but the judge ruled in her favour.
So the trial went on without the video, and they relied on their mata witnesses instead of video. But they blundered twice and let me caught them twice, to have witnesses in side court irregular to trial procedure. I took them to high court for these, and surely, LEEgime's high court threw out that motion.
What the public may not had been informed by 146th [I did't read ST & other English papers for even my own news :-) ] that, jointly, the 3 accused without Ravi [in suspension] managed to break and lock the LEEgime's witnesses evidence just with only normal litigation methods.
Yesterday, they changed back their mind about using the video, after getting no where spending all these days.
CSJ & Ghandi rejected the admitance of video on the ground that copy of video not given to us. I however stated to court that, I maintain my original earlier position of apply for the admitance of this video, and I would fight all the way to high court / supreme court / court of appeal until I get a copy of it.
As said in the SDP media release CSJ & Ghandi in most part of today's trial protested in silence, by showing non-cooperation to boycott the trial, due to the prosecution's refusal to give us the copy of video. I did not follow them to boycott, but instead, went on alone to enguage the prosecution & their witness.
After the judge inidicated that he will order the prosecution to give us a copy of video when the video is determinded to be admited, I accepted the arrangement, and indicated also that I then would have no objection to the admitance to the video evidence, if I get a copy of this video BEFORE it is being used in trial. CSJ & Ghandi just kept silent with their boycotting, and did not answer these questions asked by judge regarding their position.
Then judge announced that he ruled that the video is admited as evidence, and copies are to be made for all 3 of the accused. I then gave the court a good gesture toward this ruling, I think this ruling is fair and reasonable at that time.
However, the DPP came out to tell the court to say that she request adjournment to take instruction [from famiLEE LEEgime boss] then judge began the lunch break. Not a big surprise but an ironical one after lunch, that DPP came back after getting her boss's instructions, told the court that they still refuse to comply the judge's ruling, and won't want us to get any copy of video.
Since the judge ordered video to be given, CSJ & Ghandi broke their silence protest, and all 3 of us began to argue about getting the copy of video. Ironically, the DPP's argument quoted the example of murder weapon to be compared with copy of video, and she asserted that murder weapons also can not be duplicated to give us a copy. Our arguement include that we need to let our legal advisors overseas view the video for legal advice. Our law capable friends including Mr JBJ, Mr TangLiangHong, Mr. FrancisSeow, etc are not in Singapore now. And Ravi had been suspended by famiLEE LEEgime.
In the end, judge made a final ruling that they must give us a copy. DPP again resisted by wanting us to agree on condition that Video Can NOT Be Used For Any Purposes Other Then Preparing For Defence. What are they so afraid of? I want reader to think about it.
I think the famiLEE LEEgime are afraid that I put this video on You-Tube, because CSJ & myself spoked very leathal scandal subjects in the video. NKF is nothing in these subjects, it includes vote buying, drug/blood money laundry, Thaksin connections, and other hot stuffs some are on my blogs & forum postings. In this regard I can understand how the famiLEE LEEgime is regarding this video as a deadly weapon, and comparing it as a murder weapon case exhibit.
I replied the DPP's demand of conditionally letting us have video, that I will only use the video for legal purposes, no illegal intention at all, and the video is police taken with public funds, there is no obsene content, no national or military secret, it is just election speech of very open nature, if they want to restrict my use of my copy of video they would have to go and apply for a restraining order to retrain my use of it, and I am prepare to fight them upon their application of such an order.
Eventually the famiLEE LEEgime prosecution gave up this argument. I would not be surprised that she would come back tomorow to appeal to high court or something, not wanting to give us the video again, because they had wasted entire week trying to avoid or prevent us from having this video.
We gave the judge a good gesture of cooperation after he made ruling in our favour by not objecting the video being used in court this afternoon, even without having a copy of it in hand as being promised.
In short, I want to say that famiLEE LEEgime is not just useless, coward and Kiasu + Kiasi. Nothing surprising. They are big waste of time and tax payer's money. We are not afraid to go to jail, not afraid to face video evidence, but they proved that they are afraid of video and have got lots of things to hide.
Regarding this transcripts of video, I found about 10% error of transcription inside, a bad transcription job. After viewing the video, the judge also felt unsatisfied of the transcripts, and ordered the prosecution to fix all the omissions, errors and confusions he had found in it. Prosecution had been ordered to provide another better verion tomorrow.
I still want to demand the judge to address the point I had asked I think more than once, that he must explain to me the reason as to why he rejected my identical application to admit the same video as evidence, and when the DPP applied for exactly the same thing, he approved it. This is unfair to me under Constitution Article 12 assuring my rights to be treated equally and given fair trial. It is so obvious that he favour prosecution regarding video. And help the DPP who found herself in trouble without the video's help.
I told the judge that we could have saved wasting days with their useless witnesses, if he had proved my application to admit the video upon my identical application, at which time, CSJ & Ghandi weren't objecting the admitance of video. They only began to object this when DPP die-die just won't want to give us a copy.
Judge should by now know that we are not afraid of conviction or sentence, but we just refused to be bullied in famiLEE LEEgime court suffering from unfair trial. We are giving them a hard time not because we want to avoid jail or anything, but we just refuse to be bullied, and we showed them that we can also wind their balls up as well.
:-)
[Some of you may think Chee is nothing but a troublemaker, a political and social pariah...
... but what he is doing now is to rescue whatever's left of the democratic institutions in Singapore, especially the judiciary.]
{No wonder he wants to end up in court. That would be his chance to help save the judiciary.
Oh, and I'm sure different people would interpret the above sentence in a number of different ways.}
{interestingly up to this point, only anonymous were making comments.
in keeping with the trend.}
[I am not a PAP supporter, and I do agree with some of the things which Chee says ... but frankly, he simply does not need our sympathy over his court "problems". He wants to have those kinds of "problems", it is just part of his overall plan.]
Some may not agree with my comment. Question: Just ask yourshelf who would dare to speak up with words and ACTIONS for freedom of speech & human rights? Do you? I don't think the opposition is creating problems, it's also represent the citizens to have a say in Parliament(?)...check & balance. Why are there so many comments & unhappiness....etc. now?
I beleive "we can all see and think for ourselves, and form our own opinions".
I was completely offline from Oct 14 to Nov 3, not lifted any newspaper, nor watched any MediaCorpse news broadcast (getting to be a bit of a drag, same news, different newswrapper). So controversies generated by the pairings of Wee Siew Kim & Wee Shu Min or Shaun Seow & Mano Sabnani or any other MRT stopping news just simply passed me by.
I was battling a confluence of depression, strange flu, toothache and some legal matters which is actually quite on topic (so I trust Mr Wang won't delete?).
I'm almost about done with the legal matter, but I won't disclose all of it for strategic reasons. It's like what those in the academic circles would term as 'independent findings' (whilst I've met with Dr Chee on Oct 5, there's no collaboration nor contamination simply because he offered nothing other than to suggest moving for an adjournment). You can read it for yourself.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Magistrate’s Appeal No: 181 / 06 / 01 Between
Court No: 14
Case No: TC 7025 / 06
KOH CHONG KIANG
(NRIC No: S1471858C) .Appellant
And
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR .Respondent
TO: THE HONOURABLE THE JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF SINGAPORE
PETITION OF APPEAL
The petition of Koh Chong Kiang
Showeth as follows:
1. Your Petitioner the abovementioned Koh Chong Kiang was charged with Section 39(7) of the Town Councils Act (Cap 329A) and convicted at the District Court held at Court No. 14 on the 6th day of October, 2006 , and the following order was made thereon : fine $600 or 3 days in lieu.
Your Petitioner is dissatisfied with the said judgment on the following grounds:
The executive, the legislature, and the judiciary form the three pillars of any democratic government. The bench presides with the dignity and respectability owed to its independence, and is relied upon to dispense justice fairly.
In a virtual dictatorship, the legislature is no more than a rubber stamp, and the judicial process a mere formality. There is thus no surprise that, in the three instances in my life that I have been summoned to Court, and summoned as it were, as an accused, I find the bench carol ling and cavorting in a deathly salsa with an artful dodger of a prosecution economical with the truth.
Even a Kangaroo Court needs to conjure a pretense of impartiality in order to maintain a modicum of faith in the judicial process. In the case to which this appeal pertains, the bench scheduled the hearing to 10 days from PTC, such short notice that reluctant witnesses would have been gifted the perfect excuse not to present themselves, but then, already given more than twice the amount of time, is unable to prepare the grounds of decision and notes of evidence. For the record, I called three times for the hearing to be adjourned, but three times I was ignored.
How can such a trial unearth anything resembling the truth on which the bench can base a deliberation? In a bench trial, a judge needs to be proactive, an objective fact-finder, not simply reliant on the prosecution if he/she wishes to be fair, and to be seen to be fair, as the prosecution and their witnesses cannot be relied upon not to slash and splash where the circumstances call for it, and the devilish glint of delight happenstance in their eyes when they know the accused stand before them unrepresented and barren to a slaughter.
.....
.....
Your Petitioner prays that such judgment or sentence be reversed or annulled or that such order may be made thereon as justice may require.
Dated this day of November 2006
___________________________
Signature of Appellant
NRIC No: S1471858C_________
Somehow I seem to find a familiar strain to what's happening in Court right now, but Mr Wang would probably deny to his last breath .....
Would Mr Wang be also alleging that I'm seeking attention? I can stand for election if I have the deposit (pre-appeal, that is).
What I'm trying to say is, that sometimes Mr Wang's karmic biscuits seem to come up short, and his much touted logic and credentials unexplainably blown with the wind.
I'm actually prime candidate for ramming MRT trains right about now.
Not that I'm looking towards like about half a mil payout for such an uninsurable event (my problem is solved when I do ram a train, and the legal-tender useful to me then would be hell-notes, and the exchange-rate conversion from SGD very affordable), so don't get me wrong.
Nor do I wish to fall within the defines of what elitists like Wee Shu Min would term a 'leech'. I've been in contact with SACA, and a Sara from there brought with her to my place a shrink from IMH, his fait-accompli, and a social worker.
I spent almost an hour at Chinatown Point banging on a Delifrance table explaining to them, showing them evidence why I was not prepared, even if I were to be classified as a 'leech', I wouldn't be particularly happy to be classified as a 'mad leech', which to me simply means I'll just be a vegetable waiting for my organs to be harvested.
Which brings me back to MRT train ramming. Normally, MRT train ramming isn't technically attractive. Access is a problem. It's better to ram a bus. But ramming MRT trains stops an entire system, and is more news worthy, and if you're considering things like half a mil, well, it's just the in-thing to do.
The problem is, the likely locations for ramming an MRT train seems to be in the West. Yew Tee, Gombak, and now Chinese Garden ... places which I seldom frequent, if ever. Hmmm, need to check if I have the budget for two MRT train rides .... need to reckky first.
Another problem would be my High Court appeal. Which should come first? The hearing or the train ramming. And which is more important.
Hsien Tau:
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but as I recall, you were being prosecuted for not paying your town council conservancy fees or something like that. What kind of witnesses do you actually wish to summon, to defend yourself against this kind of charge?
For one, how about the lady from HDB, Chin Swee Branch.
Does HDB employees visit every 3-room flat 5-months after they are bought just to enquire that, for one person occupant, is it a little too big?
There's more than meets the eye, my Dear Mr Wang. I was the one being harassed for the last 10 years, but I was the one being charged for harassment when i was arrested prior to this third time.
I'm going to submit my petition of appeal in the next few days, whether the judge wants to prepare her grounds of decision or not.
Maybe you can access it and read for yourself.
BIAS?
So did you pay your conservancy charges or not?
Just as you can imagine, Mr Wang would be going off on this expected refrain ... Crime Registry won't accept Petition of Appeal when the Ground of Decision not served yet.
Fuck. The Court (LKY) wants to win by default. The judge gives you 10 days to prepare for trial, then reserves 3 months for itself to prepare the Grounds of Decision.
KNOWING FULL WELL THAT I MAY BE HOMELESS THEN.
Then the Court gives me 10 days to respond to something I won't be aware of, or loose in default.
And some idiot says "BIAS"?
It isn't the first time that has happened. I've had it for 10 years
That wasn't me, by the way.
While at a personal level, I sympathise with your problems, you're hardly in the same category as Chee.
As I recall, your business partner cheated you and you became bankrupt and OCBC wanted you to repay all your loans. This was the start of your assorted problems.
Now you cannot afford to pay your town council fees, and you go to court raising defences built around the lack of separation of the judiciary & the executive.
If you could succeed, so could 10,000 credit card bankrupts a year.
Anyway, good luck!
Your life has become a mess, and as I already said (and had said one year ago when you first appeared on my blog) I am sympathetic. But perhaps you are directing your energies in the wrong way.
If you stopped imagining that HDB, judges, LKY, chairman of OCBC, your own lawyers or whoever else has a special grudge against you ...
... perhaps you could move on more quickly and start rebuilding everything.
Now you will feel inclined to rebut my points one by one, but LHT, stop and think .... What good will it really do you? If I were you, and had so many problems, I would get off the Internet and try very hard in the real world to do something constructive for my own life.
My dear Mr Wang. You must be exremely busy right now.
I'm not even bankrupted yet.
Do bother to click on the link and read my entire blog. It's not much to go through it.
I think you got me confused with somebody else.
Watch out. Your mind is giving way, dude.
Oh very well. If you insist.
You know, I know, what is the use of all this parading? Would any of this actually help you?
Come off it, Mr Wang.
You say I'm bankrupt. That hasn't happened yet. OCBC's gonna seize the flat and sell. The money's good enough to recover their loan. The only thing that's gonna suffer is my CPF balance. You're a corporate legal advisor for Christ-sake.
And I've never been in business. So where the hell did my business partner come from? How to rebut your points.
As for the appeal, that's parading yes. But how can it not be parading when we all know it's a damn kangaroo court where I'll never win anyway, and everything I say is gonna be ruled irrelevant!
Of course it won't help; but it'll give me a chance to show that I ain't taking it lying down anymore. And I'll get to screw the high court judge - what you accused CSJ of - wayang.
There's nothing else I can do for myself when they're not gonna cut me any slack.
Oh, the High Court judge is guilty of wayang. The HDB is on a mission to victimise you. OCBC is an evil, unfair bank for demanding that you repay the money you borrowed. The Town Council shouldn't come after you for unpaid fees. The district judge is "cavorting in a deathly salsa with an artful dodger of a prosecution economical with the truth" in an attempt to make up false reasons to convict you for not paying up on your Town COuncil fees. And the High Court is giving you too little time to prepare your highly complex legal arguments for not paying up your town council fees. And Mr Wang, in your opinion, is also crazy.
Have it your way then. Ok? Good luck for your life.
Mr Wang, you don't seem very happy.
Maybe you should learn from your fellow lawyer, Mr Chan Fook Meng. He doesn't boast very much, but he can speed read a thick wad of papers, and he doesn't get his facts wrong when he then offer his opinion (for free). I was pretty impressed. (For free means he doesn't want to talk to me again, but that's understandable).
Post a Comment