http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...m=web&title=Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor %5B2009%5D%20SGCA%2064
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
CJ Chan written decision on Yong Vui Kong appeal case for those interested.
- Thread starter Hakka Tiow
- Start date
Nothing to do with the appeal. Its purely procedural on why he should be allowed to appeal after he withdrew his original appeal and the time has lapsed.
No different to coming too late for a cinema show and asking if the management will consider giving another set of tickets for a later show. Nothing about the show at all.
No different to coming too late for a cinema show and asking if the management will consider giving another set of tickets for a later show. Nothing about the show at all.
I was hesitating on whether I should put the header as "re-appeal the appeal" case. Unprecedented it was, no?
I was hesitating on whether I should put the header as "re-appeal the appeal" case. Unprecedented it was, no?
No. Yong Pung How also let one person off before.
I had waded through the law speak of CJ Chan's decision and to the best of my non legal trained ability, I found nothing that mentioned a CJ Yong precedent that is similar to this case. Can you provide more information for a link search?
Scroobal
What a good analogy. Very clear. I always enjoy your posts, just my humble opinion and I hope I have not offended any one.
Thanks bro. Happy to help.
Don't worry about offending anyone. Just posts freely and with a good conscience and you will be fine. You are bound to offend someone occasionally because we are all made up diffrently, thus the excitement and why the world is such a great place. I have put my foot in my mouth, rubbed people the wrong way and been a prick on a number of occasions but I learn from it.
Don't worry about offending anyone. Just posts freely and with a good conscience and you will be fine. You are bound to offend someone occasionally because we are all made up diffrently, thus the excitement and why the world is such a great place. I have put my foot in my mouth, rubbed people the wrong way and been a prick on a number of occasions but I learn from it.
Don't remember. Something about AP Rajah having already retired before appeal court delivering judgement so the appeal court sat again to rehear appeal and actually allowed the appeal.
While you expressed the situation well with an appropriate analogy, the importance of Chan's decision should not be underestimated. Let's not forget that ex-CJ Yong made it a cornerstone of his reforms that the Court of Appeal was the final arbiter of all cases, that once it has made its decision, cases shall not be reopened, not even if fresh evidence emerges to exonerate an accused person on death row.
During Yong's time, the only route after a CA decision is to let the Executive (President) decide, albeit on the judiciary's advice. To many of us at the time, this was crooked thinking of the worst sort but Yong had the protection of someone he had lent notes to while in Cambridge, so nothing could be done.
During Yong's time, the only route after a CA decision is to let the Executive (President) decide, albeit on the judiciary's advice. To many of us at the time, this was crooked thinking of the worst sort but Yong had the protection of someone he had lent notes to while in Cambridge, so nothing could be done.
I never commented about the content at all thus far. I merely said that it was not about the appeal.
I suspect that you have no clue what exactly happened. CA did not even hear the appeal as it was withdrawn by the defendent. Typically in a capital offence case for singapore(but not for other countries), an appeal is automatically done. The appeal was allowed to be withdraw after reasons provided by the defendent.
Everyone expected this ruling. Prosecution as indicated by Chan presented a straight forward case (nice way of saying, token resistance). Why would anyone in his right mind disallow an appeal to be heard purely for administrative reasons.
Believe me, many people would have been shocked if this procedural matter was not allowed for a man that is facing the gallows.
ps. I will write later on something that is much more important about this case.
I suspect that you have no clue what exactly happened. CA did not even hear the appeal as it was withdrawn by the defendent. Typically in a capital offence case for singapore(but not for other countries), an appeal is automatically done. The appeal was allowed to be withdraw after reasons provided by the defendent.
Everyone expected this ruling. Prosecution as indicated by Chan presented a straight forward case (nice way of saying, token resistance). Why would anyone in his right mind disallow an appeal to be heard purely for administrative reasons.
Believe me, many people would have been shocked if this procedural matter was not allowed for a man that is facing the gallows.
ps. I will write later on something that is much more important about this case.
I don't know if I know more about this case than you but I do have at least a clue. I'm aware that the appeal was never heard (because Yong had withdrawn it), and that made it easy for CJ Chan to redirect it there. I'm also not holding my breath for Yong to be spared the gallows.
It is CJ Chan's written judgement that is interesting. He used this occasion to make a point that just because a case has been disposed of by the CA, it does not mean that it can never be reopened by the CA even if natural justice demands it. Ex-CJ Yong (no relation to the condemned, I'm sure) would have insisted that the CA must be sufficiently confident in its own processes that once it had disposed of a case, it should never be reopened - there must be finality.
Also, I suspect that ex-CJ Yong would have treated the withdrawal of an appeal from the CA in the same way as the disposal of a case by the CA (or 'disposal of a criminal', as he let slipped many opening of legal years ago).
It is CJ Chan's written judgement that is interesting. He used this occasion to make a point that just because a case has been disposed of by the CA, it does not mean that it can never be reopened by the CA even if natural justice demands it. Ex-CJ Yong (no relation to the condemned, I'm sure) would have insisted that the CA must be sufficiently confident in its own processes that once it had disposed of a case, it should never be reopened - there must be finality.
Also, I suspect that ex-CJ Yong would have treated the withdrawal of an appeal from the CA in the same way as the disposal of a case by the CA (or 'disposal of a criminal', as he let slipped many opening of legal years ago).
As I explained before, this is not a landmark case. Everyone expected it to go thru as the poor chap had withdrawn his appeal and no one was prepared to let a small administrative procedure to stop the young man who is facing the gallows. I also mentioned the token resistance of the prosecution.
The megalomanic ex-CJ had the consistent habit of doubling the sentence after rejecting the appeal thereby frightening clients and lawyers alike. Even cases with good grounds were deterred and therefore did not appeal. This is a separate matter altogether. The ex-CJ never has such an issue before him like Yong's case.
Uncle Yap too thought it was a landmark case.
The more important issue is that Ravi must get a QC to handle this as this beyond his capacity. Even an SC does not have the background to argue this. Its centers on the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence. A very fundamental issue. Precedents have already been set by the privy council and Court of Appeal that it is constitutional. If this matter is not argued successfully, it strengthens the state's resolve and not only Yong but future cases will be doomed.
Bear in mind, the issue is not Yong, whether his is culpable, or if his case was conducted properly. Its just on constitutionality of the Mandatory Death sentence. Yong case is just a vehicle so to speak.
The megalomanic ex-CJ had the consistent habit of doubling the sentence after rejecting the appeal thereby frightening clients and lawyers alike. Even cases with good grounds were deterred and therefore did not appeal. This is a separate matter altogether. The ex-CJ never has such an issue before him like Yong's case.
Uncle Yap too thought it was a landmark case.
The more important issue is that Ravi must get a QC to handle this as this beyond his capacity. Even an SC does not have the background to argue this. Its centers on the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence. A very fundamental issue. Precedents have already been set by the privy council and Court of Appeal that it is constitutional. If this matter is not argued successfully, it strengthens the state's resolve and not only Yong but future cases will be doomed.
Bear in mind, the issue is not Yong, whether his is culpable, or if his case was conducted properly. Its just on constitutionality of the Mandatory Death sentence. Yong case is just a vehicle so to speak.
