- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,177
- Points
- 48
SINGAPORE - As a result of a series of mistakes made by a court clerk, a man who was released from prison more than 10 years ago came close this week to going back behind bars for the same offence.
Mr Tan Lai Kiat, 58, found himself in this unusual predicament after the authorities discovered he had been released prematurely in 1999. A warrant of arrest - issued in 2003 - was finally effected two years ago, and the broker had one last chance on Tuesday to avoid being re-imprisoned.
He succeeded.
High Court judge V K Rajah granted his petition for a Criminal Revision - a rare application that is filed only when there is "serious injustice" and "something palpably wrong" in the "exercise of judicial power", as defined from past cases.
Mr Tan's petition centred on the legality of the warrant issued against him after his release.
He had been jailed in February 1999 for nine months and fined $140,000 for assisting in the operation of an illegal lottery.
After time off for good behaviour, he was due for release in August that year but, as he did not pay his fine, he was to serve another year in jail in lieu.
Four months into his default sentence, Mr Tan asked his family to pay the equivalent balance of his fine to get an earlier release.
It was then that a Subordinate Court clerk made his first mistake.
Thinking that Mr Tan was eligible for a 246-day remission of his sentence, the clerk told the family they had to pay $44,306.
In reality, Mr Tan could have had only a 124-day remission; the outstanding fine should have been $91,764.
Three months after Mr Tan's release on Dec 24, the clerk discovered his mistake.
But instead of reporting his error, the clerk took his next mis-step. He sent a letter - which was not signed by a district judge - to Mr Tan in March 2000, falsely claiming that the latter's daughter had applied to repay the $47,458 shortfall through $4,000 monthly instalments.
This eventually led to the Subordinate Courts issuing an unlawful warrant of arrest against Mr Tan some three-and-a-half years later, after he had ignored several letters from the courts asking for repayment.
On Oct 21, 2008, Mr Tan was arrested and realised he could be jailed another 122 days, nearly a decade after his release.
On Tuesday, Mr Tan's lawyer Rajan Nair argued for his client's default sentence for not paying the fine to be reduced, or for the money they had paid to the courts to be refunded.
It was unfair for Mr Tan to be thrown back into jail because his premature release was fully due to a court clerk's mistakes, said the lawyer.
But Deputy Public Prosecutor Jaswant Singh countered that Mr Tan was "fully aware" that the sum paid then was insufficient.
"After knowing that he would have to pay a further amount of fine or re-enter prison, he wilfully and deliberately chose to ignore the matter, hoping that he would not be discovered," said DPP Singh.
Mr Nair replied that his client had "no duty" to surrender himself.
Agreeing, Justice Rajah asked: "Why should he be subjected to or put through difficulties by a mistake he didn't cause?"
There was "some basis" to say it was "entirely the Subordinate Courts' fault", Justice Rajah noted, as the court officer had taken "unilateral steps" to correct his own mistakes.
The judge reduced Mr Tan's original fine to make up for the $47,458 shortfall.
He also quashed the warrant of arrest, as it had stemmed from a letter by a court clerk - not a court order - and was thus "without legal basis". Mr Tan's sentences are therefore "considered spent", said Justice Rajah.
He added: "Mistakes happen from time to time, and we have to be candid about it, acknowledge and rectify it, instead of papering over it."
It is unclear if the court clerk is still working in the Subordinate Courts, but DPP Singh said investigations are ongoing.
Mr Tan declined comment.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100422-0000126/A-rare-revision-to-fix-court-clerks-error
Mr Tan Lai Kiat, 58, found himself in this unusual predicament after the authorities discovered he had been released prematurely in 1999. A warrant of arrest - issued in 2003 - was finally effected two years ago, and the broker had one last chance on Tuesday to avoid being re-imprisoned.
He succeeded.
High Court judge V K Rajah granted his petition for a Criminal Revision - a rare application that is filed only when there is "serious injustice" and "something palpably wrong" in the "exercise of judicial power", as defined from past cases.
Mr Tan's petition centred on the legality of the warrant issued against him after his release.
He had been jailed in February 1999 for nine months and fined $140,000 for assisting in the operation of an illegal lottery.
After time off for good behaviour, he was due for release in August that year but, as he did not pay his fine, he was to serve another year in jail in lieu.
Four months into his default sentence, Mr Tan asked his family to pay the equivalent balance of his fine to get an earlier release.
It was then that a Subordinate Court clerk made his first mistake.
Thinking that Mr Tan was eligible for a 246-day remission of his sentence, the clerk told the family they had to pay $44,306.
In reality, Mr Tan could have had only a 124-day remission; the outstanding fine should have been $91,764.
Three months after Mr Tan's release on Dec 24, the clerk discovered his mistake.
But instead of reporting his error, the clerk took his next mis-step. He sent a letter - which was not signed by a district judge - to Mr Tan in March 2000, falsely claiming that the latter's daughter had applied to repay the $47,458 shortfall through $4,000 monthly instalments.
This eventually led to the Subordinate Courts issuing an unlawful warrant of arrest against Mr Tan some three-and-a-half years later, after he had ignored several letters from the courts asking for repayment.
On Oct 21, 2008, Mr Tan was arrested and realised he could be jailed another 122 days, nearly a decade after his release.
On Tuesday, Mr Tan's lawyer Rajan Nair argued for his client's default sentence for not paying the fine to be reduced, or for the money they had paid to the courts to be refunded.
It was unfair for Mr Tan to be thrown back into jail because his premature release was fully due to a court clerk's mistakes, said the lawyer.
But Deputy Public Prosecutor Jaswant Singh countered that Mr Tan was "fully aware" that the sum paid then was insufficient.
"After knowing that he would have to pay a further amount of fine or re-enter prison, he wilfully and deliberately chose to ignore the matter, hoping that he would not be discovered," said DPP Singh.
Mr Nair replied that his client had "no duty" to surrender himself.
Agreeing, Justice Rajah asked: "Why should he be subjected to or put through difficulties by a mistake he didn't cause?"
There was "some basis" to say it was "entirely the Subordinate Courts' fault", Justice Rajah noted, as the court officer had taken "unilateral steps" to correct his own mistakes.
The judge reduced Mr Tan's original fine to make up for the $47,458 shortfall.
He also quashed the warrant of arrest, as it had stemmed from a letter by a court clerk - not a court order - and was thus "without legal basis". Mr Tan's sentences are therefore "considered spent", said Justice Rajah.
He added: "Mistakes happen from time to time, and we have to be candid about it, acknowledge and rectify it, instead of papering over it."
It is unclear if the court clerk is still working in the Subordinate Courts, but DPP Singh said investigations are ongoing.
Mr Tan declined comment.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100422-0000126/A-rare-revision-to-fix-court-clerks-error
