M Ravi abandons the ah nehs becuase they no $$$

Careful, i think he will start a donation campaign too

Published on Jun 25, 2014
Lawyer Ravi rapped, left holding clients' cost bill
ADRIAN LIM

IN AN unusual move, lawyer M. Ravi was made to foot the bill for an application he filed and later withdrew on behalf of his clients. This is because the High Court felt he had not acted in their best interests.

In his judgment yesterday, Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye said that, under the Criminal Procedure Code, the court cannot make a cost order on the defence counsel.

However, as Mr Ravi had failed to act as a competent solicitor for his clients - who are facing charges for their alleged involvement in the Dec 8 Little India riot - Mr Tan ruled that he had to bear expenses for the cost order against them.

The amount of $1,000 which the prosecutors had sought from Mr Ravi will thus be obtained from his five clients and the lawyer has to reimburse them.

In April, Mr Ravi had filed an application to quash the criminal charges faced by his clients.

He claimed that the Committee of Inquiry's (COI's) hearing into the riot "offended the rule of sub judice", and had denied the men a fair trial.

The criminal motion was made after he earlier attempted to represent his clients at the COI hearing.

Last month, the application was withdrawn by Mr Ravi, after the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) filed an application to strike out his.

While the AGC also withdrew its application, it asked the High Court to order Mr Ravi to pay $1,000 in costs incurred, for what it called a "vexatious" application not made in good faith.

Mr Tan said he appreciated Mr Ravi's effort in acting pro-bono for the five men. But, in filing an application that had only a vague assertion of sub judice, Mr Ravi was not making a "bona fide" attempt to further the interests of his clients, he added.

Mr Tan also said the affidavit had been signed by only three of the accused who were out on bail. The other two in remand were deprived of their liberties.

Mr Ravi was putting his clients at the risk of having to incur the costs of the application, which itself was "unmeritorious" and "unnecessary", Mr Tan said.

While he declined to give any comments following yesterday's verdict, Mr Ravi said he will consider whether to appeal against the decision.

On Monday, he had told My Paper that he was planning to discharge himself from representing the five men.

[email protected]

Click to expand...

chickenpie,
I will donate money for your parents and children and your grandchildren funeral.
i give pek kim lui to your whole family

No need. You can keep for yourself. Maybe bring your boyfriend CasSanova Tey for a holiday.

gingerlyn said:

chickenpie,
I will donate money for your parents and children and your grandchildren funeral.
i give pek kim lui to your whole family

Click to expand...

It makes more sense for Ravi to put his heart and soul into Roy and Tey Tsun Hang's case.

Those have higher profile and chance of winning. Those ah neh are rioters and it is a straight forward case so no much brain needed.

1k not an issue for Ravi since he can potentially make 110k from Roy.

Not higher chance of winning, but higher chance of getting money. All the dumb dumbs giving Roy money, end up all go to ravi as fees. AS for Tey, that slimy dick got money to burn.

People give Roy money because CPF is something many are pissed but got no balls to speak up. Since Roy wants to be a martyr so everyone donate to see a show.

As for Tey, he just want to ridicule the judiciary because he has been embarrassed publicly. It is a childish act of tit-for-tat which many of the egoistic people with higher status will do simply because they have the money.

cheekenpie said:

Not higher chance of winning, but higher chance of getting money. All the dumb dumbs giving Roy money, end up all go to ravi as fees. AS for Tey, that slimy dick got money to burn.

Click to expand...

PAP hates Ravi. To rule that Ravi has to pay the bills is total crap. Another laughing stock decision of sinkapore judges.

BuiKia said:

It makes more sense for Ravi to put his heart and soul into Roy and Tey Tsun Hang's case.

Those have higher profile and chance of winning. Those ah neh are rioters and it is a straight forward case so no much brain needed.

1k not an issue for Ravi since he can potentially make 110k from Roy.

Click to expand...

Roy OK......... but Tey??? ...... u alright or not???

So all those porlumpar papists think Ravi no need to eat and pay bills. Remember that bastard LKY who said there's no free lunch.

A shit skin plays out shit skins win win situation here.

For those of you patroiotic ones who want to to differntiate ravi is a sinkie shit skin while rioters are foreign skins who rioted in singapore.

Jah_rastafar_I said:

A shit skin plays out shit skins win win situation here.

For those of you patroiotic ones who want to to differntiate ravi is a sinkie shit skin while rioters are foreign skins who rioted in singapore.

Click to expand...

this shows that all shit skins cannot be trusted,even more so shit skin lawyers.

What Ravi did it right. He needs to put more effort into cases whereby he is paid to fight for. Else it would not be fair to those paying for his service.

[h=1]FOREIGN WORKERS INVOLVED IN LITTLE INDIA RIOT: M RAVI DID A LOT FOR ME AND MY FAMILY[/h]


<!-- /.block -->
<style>.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style>
Post date:
25 Jun 2014 - 11:30am









<ins style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


In April, lawyer M Ravi had filed an application to quash the charges against his five clients who were accused of being involved in the Little India riots. Ravi had said that his clients were denied a fair trial due to the ongoing Committee of Inquiry.
The Attorney-General's Chambers subsequently filed an application to have his application struck out, to which Ravi withdrew his application. However, the AGC then wanted him to pay costs of $1,000, claiming that he had not made the application in good faith.
This is unprecedented as it is rare for the courts to order costs in criminal cases.
Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye had also asked Ravi’s five clients to pay costs for the application which was "devoid of merit". The judicial commissioner also ruled that Mr Ravi had to reimburse his five clients, on the basis of unreasonable conduct and that he had put his clients at risk of having to pay the costs of the application which the judicial commissioner had ordered.
Ravi said he will consider whether to appeal against the decision.
It was also reported that lawyer M Ravi will be discharging himself from representing his five clients.
Ravi is known to be the only lawyer who pursues legal cases on human rights and activism in Singapore and he has been taking on most of these cases pro bono, which have been a stretch on his resources.
Ravi has also taken on one of Singapore’s most high profile court case in recent years, Roy Ngerng's defence against the Defamation suit of PM Lee Hsien Loong.

The Real Singapore managed to speak to one of the five accused foreign workers, Arun Kaliamurthy.
Arun shared that Ravi’s clients who were accused of their involvement in the Little India riots are largely happy and touched by the services that Ravi had rendered to them.
“I would like to show my gratitude to Mr. Ravi. When everyone backed off, Ravi came forward and stood up for us.
I am very grateful, even my family is also very grateful.
Mr. Ravi had also travelled to India on his own expenses. He gave us a lot of support (which) I don’t expect that from a lawyer. He has given my family and I moral support. (In fact), he is like family.
He is awesome and I see his professionalism.
I don’t have much words, but I am very grateful.”

The Real Singapore also caught up with Roy Ngerng, who told us, “I am thankful that during this challenging times, Ravi has shown his support for me. Many Singaporeans want answers about our CPF and how it is being managed. What Ravi is doing is of great service to Singaporeans, and I respect the decision that he would make, in order to advance the cause and to allow for transparency and accountability to be shown to Singaporeans on the use of our CPF.”
Ravi has spoken to a representative at the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme who will arrange 5 different lawyers to represent the 5 accused foreign workers.
We understand that even though Ravi will not be their official legal representative, Ravi will still be in touch with his clients and monitor their trial closely.
All eyes will now be on Roy Ngerng’s case with the prime minister and the defence that Ravi will put up. "