Chitchat AGC comments - the Kho Jabing Case

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/legal-opportunism/2816342.html
'Legal opportunism prevailed' in Kho Jabing case: AGC
The Attorney-General's Chambers reiterates that the actions of Kho Jabing’s three lawyers amounted to an abuse of court processes.

Posted 25 May 2016 21:24 Updated 25 May 2016 21:30

SINGAPORE: After every legitimate avenue for legal challenge had been attempted and exhausted in the case of convicted murderer Kho Jabing, "legal opportunism prevailed", the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said.

The AGC issued a statement to "set the record straight" concerning the multiple applications filed by Kho's three lawyers - Mr Gino Singh, Ms Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Alfred Dodwell. It reiterated an earlier assertion that their actions in the lead-up to his execution, were an abuse of court processes.

Last Thursday and Friday, the Court of Appeal dismissed two applications by Kho's lawyers in bid to get a stay of execution. The AGC said in these appeals, the lawyers repeatedly raised old arguments that had either been dismissed by the Court or withdrawn by Kho's previous lawyer in the review, Mr Chandra Mohan.

For example, Mr Singh tried to argue that Kho’s eventual death sentence was not proper because one of the Court of Appeal judges, Andrew Phang Boon Leong should not have heard both appeals. However, Mr Mohan had tried to make the same argument during the review but dropped it subsequently.

"Mr Singh should have known that it is improper to file a fresh application containing the same ground that had been previously withdrawn," AGC said.

In addition, the AGC said knowing that the criminal process had been exhausted, Ms Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Dodwell tried to "skirt around the law" by raising their arguments under the civil process instead.

"Both should have known full well that this type of collateral attack on a criminal decision was an abuse of the legal process," it added.

"The actions of Mr Singh, Mr Dodwell and Ms Chong-Aruldoss are not in keeping with the paramount duty a lawyer owes to the Court. It is wrong for any lawyer to assert that his duty to the client allows the court’s processes to be abused," AGC said in the statement.

In a separate statement, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said several inaccurate points have been made in relation to the legal process in the case of Kho. It noted that Kho was represented by counsel throughout. "He was given every opportunity to file appeals, apply for re-sentencing consequent to amendments to the mandatory death penalty regime under the Penal Code, and petition the President for clemency," MHA stated.

However, MHA said, the last-minute applications by his lawyers after the date for the execution was set showed a "pattern which was to be repeated more than once", of appeals supposedly based on "new" arguments when no such arguments were presented in reality.

"It appeared that the sole purpose of the applications was to try and delay the execution which had been set," MHA said.

Executions are traditionally carried out before 6am on Fridays. However, Kho was executed in the afternoon last Friday, following the hearing of a last-minute appeal for a stay of execution.

"After the Court of Appeal dismissed the applications, the sentence was carried out on the date which had been fixed, May 20, 2016," MHA said.

This 'jungle fowl' from Sarawak is destine for the chopping block....it had already being decided, going through the processes is just another show. The world is such, you have money, power & the connection....your chances of getting a stay in execution is very high & this apply to getting remission from certain fatal diseases too, for you can get M.P.C. to 'cure' the disease, which is out of reach for lesser mortals....

All you need is, MONEY, POWER & CONNECTION....you are the lesser 'jungle fowl'...try you may.....die, you will be.:p

Change death penalty law is okay.

But dun push your luck and change gay marriage laws.

harimau said:

Change death penalty law is okay.

But dun push your luck and change gay marriage laws.

Click to expand...

this is religion law?

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss (Facebook post)

10 hrs ·

I refer to the AGC's Media Statement dated 25 May 2016. Here is my response.

The role of a practising lawyer is challenging in more ways than one. We have to navigate between our role as officers of the Court on the one hand, and our role to serve our client's interests as his advocate on the other hand. Indeed, lawyers owe a duty to both the Courts and his client. In serving out this dual and sometimes competing duties, the practising lawyer has to make judgement calls. It was past office hours on Wednesday 18 May 2016 that I received instructions to act for Kho Jabing. Within the time frame given to me, I contemplated the grounds and the points of law and exercised my judgement to take the case, one that I believed fulfilled both professional duties. I was of the opinion that the grounds of my application had sufficient merits to warrant its day in court. In the end, the Courts were not with me and I accept their decision. Legal practice is a time-honoured profession, governed by principles and traditions. The Courts have their role in the legal system and the AGC have theirs. At the end of the day, the AGC is entitled to their opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Its a poor reply especially the last 2 sentences.

Firstly she still has not explained what the new grounds are if any. I heard when she faced the 5 Judge court, from the word go she could not explain what the new grounds are. And the scolding began. Secondly she is responding to the press release from AGC and not the Taxi Drivers" Association run by Yeo Guat Kwang. Their opinion matters and if she had taken time to think thru, she would have realised that this press release is unprecedented so and should raised a red flag. Thirdly taking a brief from a client is one thing but providing the right counsel is what is expected of lawyers. If she cannot differentiate between the two she would have failed as a lawyer. Fourthly she is preaching the AGC about the role of lawyers and not that they are beyond the pale, but nowhere is that the issue at hand.

The only thing I am comforted is that she does not generally attend court or else her clients seeking litigation would not be well represented.

I still rate her in opposition politics and her sincere desire to make a change for the better. I think this was a misstep and she is overwhelmed by emotions and is responding without much thought.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss (Facebook post)

10 hrs ·

I refer to the AGC's Media Statement dated 25 May 2016. Here is my response.

The role of a practising lawyer is challenging in more ways than one. We have to navigate between our role as officers of the Court on the one hand, and our role to serve our client's interests as his advocate on the other hand. Indeed, lawyers owe a duty to both the Courts and his client. In serving out this dual and sometimes competing duties, the practising lawyer has to make judgement calls. It was past office hours on Wednesday 18 May 2016 that I received instructions to act for Kho Jabing. Within the time frame given to me, I contemplated the grounds and the points of law and exercised my judgement to take the case, one that I believed fulfilled both professional duties. I was of the opinion that the grounds of my application had sufficient merits to warrant its day in court. In the end, the Courts were not with me and I accept their decision. Legal practice is a time-honoured profession, governed by principles and traditions. The Courts have their role in the legal system and the AGC have theirs. At the end of the day, the AGC is entitled to their opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Click to expand...

Thick Face Black Heart said:

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss (Facebook post)

10 hrs ·

I refer to the AGC's Media Statement dated 25 May 2016. Here is my response.

The role of a practising lawyer is challenging in more ways than one. We have to navigate between our role as officers of the Court on the one hand, and our role to serve our client's interests as his advocate on the other hand. Indeed, lawyers owe a duty to both the Courts and his client. In serving out this dual and sometimes competing duties, the practising lawyer has to make judgement calls. It was past office hours on Wednesday 18 May 2016 that I received instructions to act for Kho Jabing. Within the time frame given to me, I contemplated the grounds and the points of law and exercised my judgement to take the case, one that I believed fulfilled both professional duties. I was of the opinion that the grounds of my application had sufficient merits to warrant its day in court. In the end, the Courts were not with me and I accept their decision. Legal practice is a time-honoured profession, governed by principles and traditions. The Courts have their role in the legal system and the AGC have theirs. At the end of the day, the AGC is entitled to their opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Click to expand...

I give her credit for making the last minute attempt...

If she gets demerit points...so be it..
If her attempt ,in one out of 100 chances succeeds and a life is spared, there will be hundreds of merit points for her
which is secondary to the good karma that will be bestowed on her..

We will never know if there is a last minute divine help from above.

Good try..Mrs Chong-Aruldoss..

she was manipulated by Peter Low.
why Peter Low has this agenda? I will tell u later

Let me give you a comparison as much I hate to use M Ravi as a model.

This is another East Malaysian convicted and sentenced to be hanged. His name is Yong Vui Kong. Ravi went thru a number of legal challenges including facing one judge who previously complained about him. The grounds raised were not only new but were meaty as well. Believe me the judges till now acknowledge the amount of work that went into listening to all his grounds. It also went into the heart of our constitution. No once did the Judge screw him in court during these appeals and neither did the AGC raise a whimper despite the senior state counsels had to burn the midnight oil to counter the points raised.

Ravi took 4 years and luck came in and the Govt amended the laws. Long Vui Kong was spared. I have no doubt that Ravi's work had a bearing when the judges and the state counsels had to cover news ground when listening to his appeals.

What Jeanette and Alfred had done may have impaired future attempts by lawyers prepared to act at the 11th hour even with some semblance of new ground.

blissquek said:

I give her credit for making the last minute attempt...

If she gets demerit points...so be it..
If her attempt ,in one out of 100 chances succeeds and a life is spared, there will be hundreds of merit points for her
which is secondary to the good karma that will be bestowed on her..

We will never know if there is a last minute divine help from above.

Good try..Mrs Chong-Aruldoss..

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

Its a poor reply especially the last 2 sentences.

Firstly she still has not explained what the new grounds are if any. I heard when she faced the 5 Judge court, from the word go she could not explain what the new grounds are. And the scolding began. Secondly she is responding to the press release from AGC and not the Taxi Drivers" Association run by Yeo Guat Kwang. Their opinion matters and if she had taken time to think thru, she would have realised that this press release is unprecedented so and should raised a red flag. Thirdly taking a brief from a client is one thing but providing the right counsel is what is expected of lawyers. If she cannot differentiate between the two she would have failed as a lawyer. Fourthly she is preaching the AGC about the role of lawyers and not that they are beyond the pale, but nowhere is that the issue at hand.

The only thing I am comforted is that she does not generally attend court or else her clients seeking litigation would not be well represented.

I still rate her in opposition politics and her sincere desire to make a change for the better. I think this was a misstep and she is overwhelmed by emotions and is responding without much thought.

Click to expand...

In the first place, Jeanette was never a litigation lawyer as in lawyers arguing client's case after case in court. Nevertheless after launching herself successfully as one of the better opposition candidates, she began to be more vocal and articulate in terms of her advocacy. I applaud her unreservedly for her valour and sacrifice for what is essentially a thankless task; taking on the Almighty, oops I meant the AGC. Give the woman a Tiger!

She should never have taken on the brief as she is not a litigator. I know she wants to help but its best to leave this to the experts.

KuanTi01 said:

In the first place, Jeanette was never a litigation lawyer as in lawyers arguing client's case after case in court. Nevertheless after launching herself successfully as one of the better opposition candidates, she began to be more vocal and articulate in terms of her advocacy. I applaud her unreservedly for her valour and sacrifice for what is essentially a thankless task; taking on the Almighty, oops I meant the AGC. Give the woman a Tiger!

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

She should never have taken on the brief as she is not a litigator. I know she wants to help but its best to leave this to the experts.

Click to expand...

Perhaps no expert want to be involved in this thankless task ! Perhaps Jeanette thought that with her higher public profile as an opposition politician, she could bring more media exposure and added value to the appeal. I saw Peter Cuthbert Low in the ST photo image together with Jeanette and Alfred Dodwell. Sigh! If only Peter or the present Law Society President Thio had stepped up to the fore!

Alfred Dowell (Facebook post)


I am truly surprised that the AGC have decided to take the lawyers to task for acting in the Kho Jabing matter. I know every lawyer on this team worked tirelessly, fearlessly and sacrificially to save a life from death, in this case, the life of Kho Jabing.

I would state categorically that this is the sad reality of the practice of law in Singapore, that we have to be subjected to personal statements and attacks of this nature and with the release of media statements knowing that the Main Stream Media will not give us a fair reporting. I will soon make available the submissions, the full arguments and all that is relevant and related in this case, so that those who are seriously interested to know more about this issue, can take it first hand rather than what is reported to make us look bad and make the state organs look good.

As a lawyer, I have always upheld the ends of justice, always acted in my clients best interest and always taken on any case that will help the client, regardless of who the client may be. I have always been a firm advocate against the death penalty. As conventional wisdom would have it, the death penalty makes murderers of all of us. I agree with the statement.

In the case of Kho Jabing, 3 High Court Judges have found that the evidence is questionable and decided against the death penalty. There remains many questions over Kho Jabing case and the process. I will deal with it over time. There is and will always remain questions over the death penalty imposed on Kho Jabing. Hence, I do not at all regret having taken on this brief, albeit in the 11th hour, to have filed an application on Constitutional grounds and to have argued this matter before the Court of Appeal.

With respect, just because the AGC issues a media statement saying that we abused the process, does not translate into it becoming the gospel truth. It is their perspective. Many others have commended us for it. But I do not practice for praise nor recoil in fear of criticism. I do my job in the noble tradition of lawyers around the world and in Singapore who have done their utmost to save precious lives.

Perhaps the AGC should explain why when JC Kannan Ramesh clearly did not allow me into the Chamber hearing, the next day their DPP Francis Ng informed the Court of Appeal that I did not enter the chambers for "reasons best known to him" (that is allegedly I did not enter for reasons best known to me, as if to insinuate that I had a choice and choose not to enter into the chamber beating). I was shocked at this. I protested before the Court of Appeal. Even Jeanette stated clearly I was disallowed as we were not from the same law firm. No attempt was made to determine if I had a warrant to act for Kho Jabing and to act as co-counsel. I was told I could not enter the Chambers. That's all I know and next day DPP Francis Ng was saying I did not enter for "reasons best known to me". Surely the Learned DPP Francis Ng would have known I was disallowed. So, essentially whilst the AGC had 3 lawyers allowed into Chambers, Mr Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss was left alone to argue in Chambers without the benefit of co-counsel.

I was there to argue for a cause, a cause against the death penalty. I did it as I firmly believe that no client, especially death row inmates, should be denied their right to mount challenges, especially constitutional challenges, even if there might be a flicker of hope perhaps to win the day.

Well, why did the AGC appeal against Tay Yong Kwang J's decision. He decided that it should have only been a life imprisonment with 24 strokes of the cane.

The statement 'abuse of process' is thrown around too often to cause fear in lawyers from taking on cases. I am not in the least bit intimidated by such statements. I do not believe I abused the process at all, especially if it means there was only a flicker of hope to save a precious life from death.

As a Christian lawyer, I do my part to uphold what I believe to be the cause of justice and to save a life, any life based on my Christian teachings. Jesus pardoned one man from death even as he was on the cross. Jesus came to save the world, that means each and every person in this world. I will do my part to save each person I can. I do not discriminate against any person, regardless of race, religion, gender, and LGBT. Every one deserves dignity in life and dignity in death. Kho Jabing deserved a second chance and to see out his life in prison. He did not shy away from his penalty, he just wanted it to be life imprisonment. Many commendable lawyers around the world do their utmost to save precious lives in death penalty cases. I am proud to be following in that tradition. I did my utmost to save him. I am sad we failed. I am proud of my work under stressful circumstances in this case. I will do it again without hesitation.

Hence, I disagree with the AGC media statement in its entirety and I will not dwell on this issue any longer. It's a waste of my time. It will not bring Kho Jabing back to life.

I will continue to fight for the cause against the death penalty and all other worthy causes, regardless of how controversial it might appear, and regardless of what the AGC or any other may say.

Perhaps we can take this issue to the international arena and ask leading jurist from around the world if this is an abuse of process.

With respect, to have a media statement from the other side (that is the AGC) is truly a self-serving statement that I cannot and I will not take seriously.

That is all.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. Such is the wisdom of the ancients who created the laws that define a just society. These pesky lawyers know nothing. Nothing.

AGC should keep their comments to themselves, this may be prejury as it tries to be judge dredd

A more measured response. Note he never took on the AGC, neither did he confirm that there new grounds etc.
ps. the honorarium for a state assigned case is a lot more than an honorarium.

http://theindependent.sg/agc-rebuki...abings-case-ex-lawsoc-president-speaks-up/AGC rebuking lawyers who took-up Kho Jabing’s case, ex-LawSoc President speaks up
By The Independent - May 26, 2016

The Attorney-General’s Chambers suggested on Wednesday (25 may) that the lawyers of convicted murderer Jabing Kho had abused court processes in his case, by filing multiple court applications last week in a bid to delay their client’s execution. Two of the three lawyers identified by AGC, Alfred Dodwell and Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, have given a hard-hitting rebuttal to such allegations (see this: http://theindependent.sg/agcs-media-statement-is-not-gospel-truth-lawyer-alfred-dodwell-hits-back/)

Now, a former President of the Law Society, Mr Peter Low, has jumped in to defend the lawyers who defended the convicted murderer. We republish Mr Low’s Facebook note in full.

—
Of A Lawyer’s Role In A Public Interest Case

Coming back from interviewing a capital-case client (assigned by the Supreme Court, for which I’ll be paid an honorarium, instead of regular professional fees), here’s my response to AGC’s Press Statement of 25 May 2016.

Jeannette Aruldoss-Chong and Alfred Dodwell honestly thought that they had legitimate reasons to take up the cause of Kho Jabing. Jeannette even paid – from her own pocket – the court fees for filing the court documents and guaranteed the $20,000 deposit for the appeal costs of the Attorney-General. And, both Jeannette and Alfred sacrificed billable hours (and, sleep) to take up the case. Furthest from their minds was “legal opportunism,” whatever that might mean.

In the last 3 over decades, not many senior private sector lawyers have willingly stepped forward to accept unpopular court cases. I hope the AGC’s Press Statement (25 May 2016) will not deter other private sector lawyers from representing clients in public interest litigation, against government agencies and government leaders.

BTW, here’s a statement which our apex court endorsed about the role of lawyers in unpopular causes – and pro bono work. Even in an “apparently hopeless case.”

“It is easier, pleasanter and more advantageous professionally for barristers to advise, represent or defend those who are decent and reasonable and likely to succeed in their action or their defence than those who are unpleasant, unreasonable, disreputable, and have an apparently hopeless case. Yet it would be tragic if our legal system came to provide no reputable defendants, representatives or advisers for the latter.”
Per Lord Peace in Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 1914, as affirmed by our Court of Appeal in Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew & Anor [1998] 1 SLR 97

Jeannette is better off defending Amos than Kho Jabing.

fanta said:

Jeannette is better off defending Amos than Kho Jabing.

Click to expand...

You are right! Although Jeanette has good intentions, an out and out criminal law practitioner would do a more effective job.