Shanmugam: Amos’s age a factor for Court to consider

[unclesam]

Shanmugam: Amos’s age a factor for Court to consider

Protected May 3rd, 2015 | Author: Editorial

Speaking at the sidelines of a community event yesterday (2 May), Law Minister K Shanmugam said Amos Yee’s age is a factor for the Court to consider.
“Whether one is guilty, not guilty; what are the defences available, whether the fact of background or youth – these are all factors for the courts to consider,” he said.
“People have said to me: ‘Amos is young, why was he charged?’ I have refrained from commenting because those matters can be brought up in court and we have amended the law quite substantially now, to let the Court take into account these factors.”
He added that it is for society to decide the age where criminal responsibility starts.
“Once you have accepted that, then there is criminal responsibility for conduct. Whether a person is or is not guilty is for the courts and what the punishment should be, is also for the courts. But we have amended the law quite substantially to allow the courts a range of options in these matters,” he said.
Nevertheless, Mr Shanmugam said the rule of law is fundamental for any civilised society, and both the man arrested for slapping Amos Yee outside the court house, as well as Amos Yee himself are entitled to their defence in court.
Man arrested

A 49-year-old man has been arrested in connection with the assault on Amos Yee outside the court house on Thursday (30 Apr) (‘Unknown man assaults Amos Yee outside State Courts‘).
Amos was slapped by the man and thereafter, he yelled “Sue me! Come and sue me!” before fleeing the scene. The man was subsequently arrested at around 2am early Friday morning (1 May).

Law Minister K Shanmugam had earlier come out to condemn the attack (‘Law Minister condemns assault on Amos Yee‘), saying that taking the law into one’s own hands “cannot be condoned”. He explained that “Rule of Law” means respecting the legal process. “If everyone starts taking the law into his or her own hands, then we will no longer be a civilised society,” he said.

Human rights non-governmental organisation MARUAH has also issued a statement which “strongly condemns” the attack on Amos. MARUAH President Braema Mathi said the “act of violence and intimidation” is “not the way a mature and civilised society deals with opinions and opinion-makers”.

“Amos Yee is a teenager. He has made his views known. The State’s laws have taken over this process and we should leave it to the State. This is so even if we disagree with the approach taken by the State,” she added.

But former SPH journalist Bertha Henson thinks Amos ought to be “smacked”.
Yee is currently in remand. The prosecution has stood down the last charge under Section 4(1)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act (2014) for now.
Police said investigations are ongoing.

 

[Asterix]

But former SPH journalist Bertha Henson thinks Amos ought to be “smacked”.

My dear StewPIG and ignorant Bertha, did they try to turn you into a rocket scientist when you were being paid (and may well still be) at the Shit Times? :kma:

[video=youtube;UGDpwqq1Peg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGDpwqq1Peg[/video]

 

[Asterix]

Speaking at the sidelines of a community event yesterday (2 May), Law Minister K Shanmugam said Amos Yee’s age is a factor for the Court to consider.
“Whether one is guilty, not guilty; what are the defences available, whether the fact of background or youth – these are all factors for the courts to consider,” he said.
“People have said to me: ‘Amos is young, why was he charged?’ I have refrained from commenting because those matters can be brought up in court and we have amended the law quite substantially now, to let the Court take into account these factors.”
He added that it is for society to decide the age where criminal responsibility starts.
“Once you have accepted that, then there is criminal responsibility for conduct. Whether a person is or is not guilty is for the courts and what the punishment should be, is also for the courts. But we have amended the law quite substantially to allow the courts a range of options in these matters,” he said.
Nevertheless, Mr Shanmugam said the rule of law is fundamental for any civilised society, and both the man arrested for slapping Amos Yee outside the court house, as well as Amos Yee himself are entitled to their defence in court.

My dear FARKTARD MiniSTAR WhateverMUGAM, these series of sentences rather pre-supposes that Amos is guilty and the only question is what sort of sentence should be meted out to him. Sure you put in some ambiguous parts to give yourself some wiggle room, but the total effect of the series of sentences is still prejudicial to the accused person's right to a fair trial.

Entitled to "their defence in court"? What sort of StewPIG statement is that. They are entitled to a FAIR TRIAL. That includes and is not limited to: the prosecution proving its case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; the accused being entitled to question the very validity of the laws pursuant to which he has been charged; etc. If the prosecution fails to meet the required standard, the defence may not even be called. The case is thrown out, I am told, the standard is something less than beyond reasonable doubt, prima donna or something.

Are you even aware of the SUB JUDICE principle? Your fellow Ah Neh here, who is a mere sportsman, seems to know the law better than you! Now watch and learn! You StewPIG FARKTARD! :kma:

[video=youtube;O0l3OU9Md8o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0l3OU9Md8o[/video]

 

[borom]

" ...........Article 11(1) of the Constitution of Singapore provides that no person shall be made to suffer greater punishment
for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. Gynaecologist Tan Hong Yong failed to declare his complete income for two
years.....found guilty....In court, after the punishment was pronounced the police snapped a pair of handcuffs on his wrists.....
The question is whether the snapping of handcuffs was carried out according to law or whether ‘greater punishment’ was inflicted than
is permitted by law. Handcuffing the doctor was not ordered by the court. It is not prescribed in the Income Tax Act (Cap134) or
in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)...............................

The Supreme Court of India in 1980 considered the legal ramifications of handcuffing prisoners and the classification of prisoners and said:
We lay down as necessarily implicit in arts 14 and 19 that when there is no compulsive need to fetter a prisoner’s limbs, it is sadistic, capricious,
despotic and demoralising to humble a man by manacling him … . The minimal freedom of movement which even a detainee is entitled to under
art 19 cannot be cut down cruelly by application of handcuffs or other hoops. It will be unreasonable to do so unless the State is able to make out
that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the prisoner being so dangerous and desperate and the circumstances so hostile to safe-keeping.
[Prem Shankar supra at 1542] ...................
Turning to Fundamental Liberties enshrined in the Indian Constitution, the court said:
Fundamental Rights are heavily loaded in favour of personal liberty even in prison. The escorting officer who handcuffs a prisoner to be produced
in court must contemporaneously record reasons for doing so and show the reasons so recorded to the presiding judge and get his approval so that
there is control over possible arbitrariness in applying handcuffs .........

The principle of reasonableness and fair and just procedure accorded by the Indian authorities is part of our law (see Ong Ah Chuan v PP [1981] AC 648 at
660). The Indian court described handcuffing as follows:
Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary....... bind a man’s hand and foot, fetter his
limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul
the soul of our constitutional culture. [at 1541–42].........
It is submitted that this was, and must also be, the legal norm in the Republic of Singapore. It is not enough for a person
to be charged with a grave offence. Evidence of desperate behaviour geared to make good his escape and the like are necessary before handcuffs are
applied . When escorting officers handcuff a prisoner produced in court, reasons must be given and the court’s approval obtained. Justice must not only
be done, it must also be seen to be done

KS Rajah, SC , Criminal Practice Committee , Law Society of Singapore "

http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2002-10/Oct02-inprac.htm