|
|
|
Prosecution
makes a hash of evidence; DPP confers with witness outside
courtroom
Singapore Democrats
28 Nov
07
The second day of the trial of Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr
Yap Keng Ho saw the police making a hash of their own evidence.
The two men are being charged with speaking without a
permit on 8 April 07 at the Woodlands MRT Station while selling
SDP's newspaper, The New Democrat.
The second
prosecution witness, Station Inspector Charles Soon Fook Kong,
took the stand and testified that he had directed his colleague,
Sgt Lam Tien Chiang, to take photographs of the area where the
SDP members were selling its newspaper.
Mr Soon said that
he did this at around 5 pm after the SDP had left the area. The
photographs were tended in court as exhibits.
Deputy
Public Prosecutor Lim Tse Haw affirmed that the time the
photographs were taken (as indicated on the envelope containing
the photographs) was 5 pm.
Upon cross-examination,
however, Dr Chee pointed out that one of the photographs showed a
clock on the MRT Station which showed 3:47 pm.
During the
lunch break the DPP, upon the defendants' request, had the
photograph enlarged.
Upon closer scrutiny, DPP Lim agreed
that the time shown on the photograph was indeed 3:47 pm: "The
hand on the left side is between 9 and 10, and the hand of the
right side is between 3 and 4".
"In conventional
terms," Dr Chee added, "the clock indicates three
forty-seven pm. Is that right?"
"Yes," the
Prosecutor said.
Turning
to SI Charles Soon, Dr Chee asked if the witness agreed that the
time in the photograph shown was 3:47 pm. Mr Soon agreed.
"Then
why did you tell the court that the time the photographs were
taken was five pm?" Dr Chee asked.
"You must
ask Sgt Lam this question. He was the one who took the
photographs," Mr Soon replied.
Which was what DPP
Lim Tse Haw did. During the lunch break, the DPP had approached
Sgt Lam about the "discrepancy".
Sgt Lam
replied that it was a typographical error but added that he was
not the one who had typed the information on the envelope. That
was the Crime Department's job.
Be that as it may, what
was DPP Lim doing talking to Sgt Lam who was going to be one of
the witnesses?
"Is it proper for the DPP to
communicate this to Sergeant Lam during the break?" Dr Chee
enquired.
Judge Jasvender Kaur replied that the DPP knows
the rules of court and that there was nothing wrong for the DPP
to communicate with a witness as long as he didn't coach or
influence the witness.
"But the DPP was
communicating with a witness who had yet to take the stand about
proceedings that had taken place in the courtroom," Dr Chee
argued.
In the ensuing exchange with Judge Kaur, Dr Chee
pointed out that in his previous trial, an investigation officer
who was present in the courtroom was seen communicating with
other police witnesses who had not yet testified.
The
judge, Eddie Tham, had then said that the incident was
"regrettable" and admitted that it was "not
proper" for the officer to be in the courtroom while his
colleagues gave evidence.
The only different in the
present case was the DPP, and not the investigating officer, who
had communicated with a witness about something that had
transpired during court proceedings.
"Why couldn't
the DPP ask Sergeant Lam the question in court when the witness
took the stand and was under oath?" Dr Chee asked.
The
Judge turned to the DPP.
"My point is that I saw the
need to clarify with Sergeant Lam," DPP Lim replied.
"I
think we all saw the need for Sergeant Lam to clarify the
discrepancy," Dr Chee countered. "But that's not my
question. The question I asked was why couldn't you ask the
sergeant the question on the stand instead of during the lunch
break?"
DPP Lim replied: "Sergeant Lam hasn't
come to the stand yet."
"Again you have avoided
answering my question. I know Mr Lam hasn't taken the stand yet.
But my question, once again, is: Why could you not have clarified
with Sergeant Lam the discrepancy when he takes the stand instead
of doing it out of court?" Dr Chee repeated.
Judge
Kaur stepped in, declared that the DPP had answered Dr Chee's
question and adjourned the hearing.
Readers can judge for
themselves whether the DPP was prevaricating or not.
The
hearing continues tomorrow at 9:30 am at Subordinate Court 7.
|
|
