M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Ming Yi seeks trial in High Court
Defence raises 'fair trial' concerns
A LAWYER acting for Shi Ming Yi, founder and former chief of Ren Ci Hospital, yesterday made a novel argument in a rare move to transfer his criminal trial from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court.
The reason: the former head of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), which investigated Ming Yi, is now the top judge at the Subordinate Courts.
But Deputy Public Prosecutor Jaswant Singh opposed the application, calling it a delay tactic and arguing that it undermines public confidence in the lower courts.
Ming Yi, 46, a Buddhist monk, faces 10 charges of forgery, providing false or misleading information to the Commissioner of Charities, conspiracy to falsify a payment voucher and misappropriation of Ren Ci funds.
Senior Counsel Andre Yeap, who leads his defence team, argued there is 'reasonable apprehension' in the minds of the accused and the public, that a fair trial may not be possible, but he also stressed that he had no intention of impugning the integrity of the courts.
It is believed to be the first time in Singapore that such grounds have been raised and to support his case, Mr Yeap cited court rulings in India.
Lawyer Ng Lip Chih, acting for Ming Yi's former personal executive Raymond Yeung Chi Hang, 33, who faces two joint charges, said he was taking the same position.
Mr Yeap's arguments centred on the fact that Senior District Judge (SDJ) Tan Siong Thye had personally led the investigations against Ming Yi when he was head of CAD.
Mr Tan, who was with CAD from 1999 to May last year, was appointed SDJ in August.
Mr Yeap contended that although Mr Tan was not the actual investigator, details of how the probe was going would be reported to him and he would have approved the decision to recommend Ming Yi to be prosecuted. Now, as SDJ, he is responsible for the assessment of district judges and their career development.
Mr Yeap stressed that he was not asserting actual bias. But it is reasonable for his client to be concerned that any district judge hearing his case, whether consciously or subconsciously, could be influenced by the fact that his superior had led the investigation.
DPP Singh said it was wrong to say that Mr Tan, who gives broad directions to investigators, had 'personally led' the investigations. Neither is Mr Tan going to preside over the trial.
Accused persons have a right to appeal, he pointed out, arguing that if the application is allowed, it may open the floodgates for cases investigated by the CAD while Mr Tan was director.
He pointed out that the defence was making this move some seven months after Ming Yi was charged.
But Mr Yeap replied that the possibility of bringing the case to the High Court was raised in December. This was told to a district judge in chambers in January.
He described it as a systemic issue - there should have been a 'cooling off' period, as there was after Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was appointed. CJ Chan did not hear criminal cases handled by prosecutors when he was Attorney-General.
The case has been fixed to be heard before a district judge from April 2 to 24.
Justice Choo Han Teck will give his decision on Thursday.
Transfer of a case is very rare
THE provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that allows the High Court to order a criminal case to be transferred from the Subordinate Courts is rarely invoked.
There have been only three such applications to the High Court in the last four years, according to figures from the Supreme Court up till August last year.
Criminal cases can be transferred from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court in certain circumstances, including when it appears that:
a fair and impartial trial cannot be held in the lower courts;
a question of law may set a precedent for future similar cases;
such an order will make it more convenient to the parties or witnesses; or
such an order is expedient for the ends of justice.
One such case is that of former Member of Parliament Lew Syn Pau and businessman Wong Sheung Sze. In 2006, their lawyers successfully argued for their charges under the Companies Act to be tried in the High Court, on the grounds that an important and difficult question of law was likely to arise.
Both were acquitted.
Under the CPC, a district court can also order an accused person to be committed for trial in the High Court if an application is brought by the prosecution.
This may occur in cases of public interest or if prosecutors are seeking sentences beyond the powers of the lower courts.
Cases include former Singapore Airlines employee Teo Cheng Kiat, who embezzled $35 million from the airline and former Asia-Pacific Breweries finance manager Chia Teck Leng, who swindled four banks out of $117 million. Teo was jailed 24 years in 2000; Chia, 42 years in 2004.
Defence raises 'fair trial' concerns
A LAWYER acting for Shi Ming Yi, founder and former chief of Ren Ci Hospital, yesterday made a novel argument in a rare move to transfer his criminal trial from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court.
The reason: the former head of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), which investigated Ming Yi, is now the top judge at the Subordinate Courts.
But Deputy Public Prosecutor Jaswant Singh opposed the application, calling it a delay tactic and arguing that it undermines public confidence in the lower courts.
Ming Yi, 46, a Buddhist monk, faces 10 charges of forgery, providing false or misleading information to the Commissioner of Charities, conspiracy to falsify a payment voucher and misappropriation of Ren Ci funds.
Senior Counsel Andre Yeap, who leads his defence team, argued there is 'reasonable apprehension' in the minds of the accused and the public, that a fair trial may not be possible, but he also stressed that he had no intention of impugning the integrity of the courts.
It is believed to be the first time in Singapore that such grounds have been raised and to support his case, Mr Yeap cited court rulings in India.
Lawyer Ng Lip Chih, acting for Ming Yi's former personal executive Raymond Yeung Chi Hang, 33, who faces two joint charges, said he was taking the same position.
Mr Yeap's arguments centred on the fact that Senior District Judge (SDJ) Tan Siong Thye had personally led the investigations against Ming Yi when he was head of CAD.
Mr Tan, who was with CAD from 1999 to May last year, was appointed SDJ in August.
Mr Yeap contended that although Mr Tan was not the actual investigator, details of how the probe was going would be reported to him and he would have approved the decision to recommend Ming Yi to be prosecuted. Now, as SDJ, he is responsible for the assessment of district judges and their career development.
Mr Yeap stressed that he was not asserting actual bias. But it is reasonable for his client to be concerned that any district judge hearing his case, whether consciously or subconsciously, could be influenced by the fact that his superior had led the investigation.
DPP Singh said it was wrong to say that Mr Tan, who gives broad directions to investigators, had 'personally led' the investigations. Neither is Mr Tan going to preside over the trial.
Accused persons have a right to appeal, he pointed out, arguing that if the application is allowed, it may open the floodgates for cases investigated by the CAD while Mr Tan was director.
He pointed out that the defence was making this move some seven months after Ming Yi was charged.
But Mr Yeap replied that the possibility of bringing the case to the High Court was raised in December. This was told to a district judge in chambers in January.
He described it as a systemic issue - there should have been a 'cooling off' period, as there was after Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was appointed. CJ Chan did not hear criminal cases handled by prosecutors when he was Attorney-General.
The case has been fixed to be heard before a district judge from April 2 to 24.
Justice Choo Han Teck will give his decision on Thursday.
Transfer of a case is very rare
THE provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that allows the High Court to order a criminal case to be transferred from the Subordinate Courts is rarely invoked.
There have been only three such applications to the High Court in the last four years, according to figures from the Supreme Court up till August last year.
Criminal cases can be transferred from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court in certain circumstances, including when it appears that:
a fair and impartial trial cannot be held in the lower courts;
a question of law may set a precedent for future similar cases;
such an order will make it more convenient to the parties or witnesses; or
such an order is expedient for the ends of justice.
One such case is that of former Member of Parliament Lew Syn Pau and businessman Wong Sheung Sze. In 2006, their lawyers successfully argued for their charges under the Companies Act to be tried in the High Court, on the grounds that an important and difficult question of law was likely to arise.
Both were acquitted.
Under the CPC, a district court can also order an accused person to be committed for trial in the High Court if an application is brought by the prosecution.
This may occur in cases of public interest or if prosecutors are seeking sentences beyond the powers of the lower courts.
Cases include former Singapore Airlines employee Teo Cheng Kiat, who embezzled $35 million from the airline and former Asia-Pacific Breweries finance manager Chia Teck Leng, who swindled four banks out of $117 million. Teo was jailed 24 years in 2000; Chia, 42 years in 2004.
