|
|
|
Chee's
trial: The Prosecution at it again
29 Jan 07
The
trial of Dr Chee Soon Juan, charged with attempting to leave
Singapore without a permit, resumed with another clanger from the
Prosecution.
Prosecutor Ms Kamala, from the Official
Assignee's office, stood up to re-examine her witness, Ms Kala
who holds the position of Manager in the OA's office. (Yes, they
are, in fact, colleagues in the same office. More about this
later.)
During re-examination, Ms Kamala had asked Ms Kala
about an email which the Prosecutor wanted to introduce as part
of the evidence.
On seeing this Mr Alfred Dodwell, Dr
Chee's lawyer, immediately objected on two grounds:
One,
it was inappropriate for the Prosecution to introduce evidence
under re-examination. (Under court rules the prosecution first
leads the witness in evidence, followed by cross-examination by
the defence counsel. The prosecution is then allowed to
re-examine the witness but only to clarify the witness'
testimony, not to adduce fresh evidence.)
Judge Aedit
Abdullah admitted that it was "not proper" for Ms
Kamala to do so.
Two, and a much more serious matter,
while under oath, witness Kala had obviously been communicating
with Prosecutor Kamala. This is a grave breach of legal practice.
The Judge had warned the witness when the trial was
adjourned, that she was still on oath and that she was not to
discuss trial matters with anyone else.
Mr Dodwell
pointed out that it was clear that Ms Kala had been communicating
with Ms Kamala when the proceedings was stood down. Ms Kamala
admitted that Ms Kala had brought to her attention (when the
court was not is session) an email which she wanted to introduce
as part of the evidence.
Mr Dodwell said that this was
highly improper and raised the question of whether there was any
more communication between the two. He then told the Judge that,
as a result, the entire evidence of Ms Kala was tainted and had
to be ruled out.
Mr Dodwell then indicated that he was
making an application to that effect. Judge Aedit stood down the
hearing and allowed Mr Dodwell time to prepare submissions for
the application.
Under the strange setup, Ms Kamala is
not only the legal officer prosecuting the case but also holds
the position of Assistant Official Assignee and Public
Trustee/Official Receiver.
In other words, she works in
the same office of the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office
(IPTO) and under the same boss, the Official Assignee, as Ms
Kala.
Worse, emails exchanged between the OA officers
handling Dr Chee's case before the trial began, or for that
matter, before the decision was made to charge the SDP
secretary-general, were copied to Ms Kamala.
Such
proximity between prosecutor and witnesses raises questions about
propriety. The Judge himself had earlier noticed this and raised
his concern.
When parties subsequently appeared before
the Judge in chambers, Ms Kamala offered to retract the latest
evidence which she and Ms Kala wanted to introduce during
re-examination.
But the cat was already out of the bag.
The two had been found to have been communicating with each
other.
In an earlier case involving Dr Chee, Mr Gandhi
Ambalam, and Mr Yap Keng Ho, the Prosecution was also caught with
an egregious breach of the rules of court. In that case, Deputy
Public Prosecutor Ms Lee Lit Cheng had asked one of her witnesses
to be in the courtroom while other witnesses were testifying.
This particular witness was also seen to have been communicating
with other witnesses who had not yet take the stand.
These
instances bring up two questions: One, were the state prosecutors
so confident of securing a conviction that they became complacent
about adhering to court rules?
Or was it a case of
arrogance leading them to conclude that they could get away with
such breaches of procedure?
Or maybe it was a combination
of the two.
Either way, it does not reflect well on the
Government, First World or otherwise.
The hearing
continues tomorrow at 10 am in Subordinate Court 15.
|
|
