- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
I REFER to Chief Prosecutor Aedit Abdullah's article last Wednesday ("Publishing prosecutorial guidelines: promise, risk and reality").
I am writing from my perspective as a lawyer for victims as well as accused persons and their families.
The core issue is not the provision of the prosecution's guidelines.
The real issue is letting both victims and accused persons know the reasons why certain things are done.
Some victims want to know why the prosecution does not proceed in certain cases, and some accused persons want to know why they are seemingly treated unfairly or differently from other accused persons.
Further, for some accused persons who are given discharges not amounting to acquittals, they similarly want to know why the prosecution does not apply for full acquittals after some time has elapsed.
The worst feeling is not knowing why certain things are done or not done.
This feeling is amplified when a person feels injustice as a result of that particular prosecutorial decision.
The solution is not for published guidelines and I agree mostly with what Mr Aedit has said.
However, while published guidelines are probably not necessary or useful, people should be informed of the reasons as to why certain decisions are reached.
This is especially so when the prosecution's decision seems to disclose an ostensible inequity, even though that consequence is not intended.
At this juncture, it must be remembered that the Public Prosecutor is currently under no express obligation to give reasons for decisions made. Parliament needs to step in if any substantial change is to take place.
The next difficult question is in deciding which decisions should be explained and which need not be explained.
As in most difficult questions, I would suggest that we defer to the Court for guidance.
Our Court of Appeal has shown that meritorious cases can always be tested in Court.
Effective testing would require that the prosecution disclose its reasons and the Court would then evaluate the reasonableness of those reasons.
I do not see a flood of satellite litigation stemming from this.
Our Courts will consider meritorious cases carefully and will be quick to point out to counsel if certain positions are blatantly untenable.
Further, lawyers worth their salt will not bother with frivolous attempts, and those who do will see the consequences of their actions.
So let us refocus the issue. It is not guidelines that are needed, but good reasons.
Subhas Anandan
President,
Association of Criminal Lawyers Singapore
I am writing from my perspective as a lawyer for victims as well as accused persons and their families.
The core issue is not the provision of the prosecution's guidelines.
The real issue is letting both victims and accused persons know the reasons why certain things are done.
Some victims want to know why the prosecution does not proceed in certain cases, and some accused persons want to know why they are seemingly treated unfairly or differently from other accused persons.
Further, for some accused persons who are given discharges not amounting to acquittals, they similarly want to know why the prosecution does not apply for full acquittals after some time has elapsed.
The worst feeling is not knowing why certain things are done or not done.
This feeling is amplified when a person feels injustice as a result of that particular prosecutorial decision.
The solution is not for published guidelines and I agree mostly with what Mr Aedit has said.
However, while published guidelines are probably not necessary or useful, people should be informed of the reasons as to why certain decisions are reached.
This is especially so when the prosecution's decision seems to disclose an ostensible inequity, even though that consequence is not intended.
At this juncture, it must be remembered that the Public Prosecutor is currently under no express obligation to give reasons for decisions made. Parliament needs to step in if any substantial change is to take place.
The next difficult question is in deciding which decisions should be explained and which need not be explained.
As in most difficult questions, I would suggest that we defer to the Court for guidance.
Our Court of Appeal has shown that meritorious cases can always be tested in Court.
Effective testing would require that the prosecution disclose its reasons and the Court would then evaluate the reasonableness of those reasons.
I do not see a flood of satellite litigation stemming from this.
Our Courts will consider meritorious cases carefully and will be quick to point out to counsel if certain positions are blatantly untenable.
Further, lawyers worth their salt will not bother with frivolous attempts, and those who do will see the consequences of their actions.
So let us refocus the issue. It is not guidelines that are needed, but good reasons.
Subhas Anandan
President,
Association of Criminal Lawyers Singapore
