SEX for 'A' grade: Law prof arrested

[gingerlyn]

Note 16: Judge censored defence some witnesses

It is reported: "Law professor Tey Tsun Hang has been allowed to call 16 witnesses for his defence when the sex-for-grades corruption trial resumes next month. Tey, who is conducting his own defence, had initially drawn up a list of 22 people."; "Tey arrived at the Subordinate Courts yesterday for a closed-door hearing on the witness list. Of the 16 approved, five are expected to testify in the trial within a trial. They include Alexandra Hospital doctors and NUS law dean Simon Chesterman.": http://www.straitstimes.com/breakin...-trial-tey-call-16-witnesses-defence-20130305

Questions:
Why did the judge decide to take it upon himself to censor the defence witnesses;
During the first part of trial in January 2013, the prosecution was allowed to change its witnesses all the time; there was no mention in the January trial that the Prosecution had to seek the judge's approval to call its witnesses;
Why was the defence not allowed to do the same, and has to have its witnesses pre-censored?
Why conduct this in-chambers, and not in the court?
Now, we do not even know what the 6 other witnesses were not allowed - who are these 6 witnesses not allowed to come to court?
Did the Prosecution object to the 6 witnesses, and the judge agreed to censor them? If so, why?
Why no transparency?

 

[gingerlyn]

Note 15: Next segment of trial


The judge already ruled defence would be called even before the case of the prosecution closes. The next segment of trial is the entire month of April 2013, according to news reports, for a trial-within-a-trial (to admit Tey's confessions taken after he was hospitalised at Alexandra Hospital) and the defence.


Question: But the case for the prosecution had not finished yet. How come the judge assumed Tey's confessions will be admitted and his defence will be called, when the case of prosecution is not done?

 

[StarshipTroopers]

06/11/2014 13:30 | By TODAY via Channelnewsasia.com

Ex-NUS law professor Tey seeks reinstatement of academic position

High Court order filed to reverse former NUS law professor Tey Tsun Hang's ‘wrongful’ dismissal following his subsequently-overturned corruption conviction.

SINGAPORE: Former National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor Tey Tsun Hang has applied to the High Court to have his dismissal from duty quashed and to be reinstated.

Mr Tey is alleging that NUS did not carry out any disciplinary proceedings against him and had based the decision to dismiss him on the trial court conviction.

In his affidavit tendered to the court last week, Mr Tey said NUS had “jumped the gun” in its decision.

“The NUS cannot dismiss a tenured law professor based on conviction declared by the High Court to be misconceived and mistake, a conviction based on evidence misconstrued and its significance misunderstood,” he said.

Mr Tey was suspended from his post on July 27, 2012 after he was charged for alleged misconduct with his then-student Darinne Ko.

He was officially dismissed on May 28, 2013 upon the oral delivery judgment of his conviction which was later overturned in February this year.

Mr Tey is currently unemployed and is living in Malaysia, with his lawyer M Ravi adding that Tey feels “aggrieved” about the situation.

- TODAY

 

[gingerlyn]

Former tenured law professor takes court action against NUS to seek reinstatement of position



The former tenured law professor of the National University of Singapore, Tey Tsun Hang, who was summarily dismissed by the university on 28 May 2013 – the same day he was initially convicted of corruption – filed a court document on 3 June 2014 to seek reinstatement of his tenured academic position.

Tey, whose conviction was subsequently overturned at the High Court, has asked to quash what he calls the ‘wrong and wrongful’ summary dismissal by the university. He claims that the university carried out the summary dismissal, without regard to due process and without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

Tey seeks judicial remedies on the ground that the summary dismissal against him was a breach of natural justice, infringing his fundamental right to a fair hearing and of the presumption of innocence, and is illegal, irrational and procedurally improper.

Professor Tey was a tenured law professor at the National University of Singapore. He has written critically on the Singapore judiciary and the legal system, as well as how Singapore government had charged its opposition leaders and activists under various laws and how government leaders had used defamation proceedings to sue and cripple their opponents. Just before he was interrogated by Singapore’s Corruption Investigation Bureau in April 2012, his book, ‘Supreme Executive, Supine Jurisprudence and Supplication Profession’ was published by Hong Kong University in late 2011, and his writing was criticised by the then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in February 2012.


In April 2012, he was interrogated by Singapore’s CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau). After 12 hours of interrogation, he was rushed by an ambulance to a government hospital for emergency medical treatment.


He was prosecuted and charged for corruption on 27 July 2012. The NUS suspended him from duty on the same date, on the basis of the criminal charges. When he was convicted on 28 May 2013, he was served with a summary dismissal letter by the university.

The conviction was eventually declared wrong and wrongful by the Singapore Supreme Court on 28 February 2014.

In this court action, Tey is seeking due process and fair hearing, and says that “the NUS cannot dismiss a tenured law professor based on a conviction declared by the High Court to be misconceived and mistaken, a conviction based on evidence misconstrued and its significance misunderstood.”

Tey was not called up by the NUS for investigations, prior to the summary dismissal.

In response to Tey’s position, NUS has replied Channel News Asia that under the terms and conditions of Tey’s appointment, termination may be effected without prior notice should he be convicted of any crime that is likely to bring the university into disrepute.
Judicial consistency and judicial fairness

The invocation of criminal presumption of guilt, which applies to an employee of a public body, during the trial against Tey resurfaces as an issue in this round of court action.

Previously, the Singapore Attorney-General and two Supreme Court judges – the trial judge who convicted him during trial, and the appellate judge who acquitted him on appeal – declared NUS to be a public body, despite arguments by the NUS that it was ‘autonomous’. On that basis, the more onerous criminal presumption of guilt was automatically invoked against Tey during the criminal trial.

In the court document, Tey says that he expects “judicial consistency – and thus judicial fairness – in the Singapore Supreme Court’s approach to and treatment of the status of the NUS as a public body”.

Two Singapore Supreme Court judges, in agreeing with the Attorney-General’s Chambers which drafted the NUS statute, had declared the NUS a public body and invoked the onerous criminal presumption of guilt against Tey. Tey is now asking the same Supreme Court to similarly treat the NUS as a public body in according him the public law rights that he is entitled to.

Tey requests that his former university “to do what is right, and live up to the international reputation it aspires to” – carry out proper investigations and hold a fair hearing at the very least, and not dismiss him without regard to due process.

Local human rights lawyer, M Ravi will be acting as Tey’s counsel.

 

[Heaven]

High Court reserves judgment on judicial review application by ex-NUS law prof Tey Tsun Hang

Published on Nov 3, 2014 1:58 PM

Mr Tey, 42, was sacked on May 28 last year following his conviction on the same day of corruption for accepting gifts and sex from a student. -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

By Selina Lum

SINGAPORE - THE High Court on Monday reserved judgment on whether it should give permission to former law professor Tey Tsun Hang to apply for judicial review of his sacking from the National University of Singapore (NUS) last year.

Mr Tey, 42, was sacked on May 28 last year following his conviction on the same day of corruption for accepting gifts and sex from a student. However, in a stunning turnaround, he was acquitted on appeal to the High Court in February.

In June, he filed court papers seeking a judicial review of NUS' decision to sack him. Represented by lawyer M Ravi, he wants the court to quash the university's decision to sack him so that he can get his job back.

In a closed-door hearing on Monday, Mr Ravi argued that Mr Tey should be given permission to go ahead with the judicial review.

A judicial review is a procedure in which the court is asked to evaluate the decisions of public bodies. To filter out frivolous cases, the party challenging the decision first has to get permission from the court before the actual review can be heard.

After hearing arguments, the court reserved judgment and gave parties two weeks to file further written replies.

Mr Tey, who returned to Malaysia after serving his five-month jail term, was not in court, but Mr Ravi told reporters that he is in Singapore.

 

[Sinkie]

Reserves judgment? If Bill Clinton can have his intern Monika suck his dick and still retain office, then it is non of the school's business if the Prof chooses to fuck his student if it is consensual.

 

[Ginchiyo Tachibana]

Court strikes out ex-law professor's bid for judicial review of his revoked PR status

Published on Dec 3, 2014 1:46 PM

Tey Tsun Hang's move for a judicial review is an abuse of the court process, says High Court Judge Quentin Loh. -- PHOTO: THE NEW PAPER

By K.C. Vijayan

SINGAPORE - The High Court struck off former law professor Tey Tsun Hang's bid for a judicial review of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA) decision to revoke his permanent residency status.

Justice Quentin Loh, in explaining why, criticised Tey's move for a judicial review as an abuse of the court process.

Mr Tey, 43, was acquitted on appeal in the High Court in February of corruptly accepting gifts and sex from a student in exchange for better grades.

His lawyer M. Ravi had argued that he should be given the court's go-ahead for a judicial review of the ICA's decision and decision-making process.