[h=2]
The Woffles Wu Saga: A Case For the High Court to Exercise its Revisionary Powers?[/h]
June 19th, 2012 |
Author:
Contributions
Woffles Wu
As an NUS law grad living and practising abroad, I would like to add some further food for thought on this Woffles Wu saga.
• Question 1:
The judge is not totally blameless. Under Section 128 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“the Code”), “a court may alter a charge or frame a new charge, whether in substitution for or in addition to the existing charge”. He can do that “at any time before judgment is given”. If the evidence produced before the Court showed that Wu was the prime mover rather than a mere instigator, why did the judge not order that the charge be re-framed?
However, under Section 130 read together with Section 10(1) of the Code, the Court can only alter the charge to one that is under Section 182 of the Penal Code (a more serious offence of providing
false information with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person) with the consent of the Public Prosecutor (“PP”). The PP can of course refuse to give consent, but then he will have to give the judge reasons for such refusal or at least the judge is entitled to ask and if he did not get an adequate answer, that will be reflected in the record of the proceedings to the PP’s detriment.
• Question 2:
A re-framing of the charge from one of abetting an offence under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act to being the prime offender does not require the consent of the PP. So why did the judge not exercise his power to alter the charge in this manner? Or for that matter to invoke other provisions of the criminal laws of Singapore that does not require the PP’s consent, if that is perceived to be not forthcoming.
• Question 3:
Section 109 of the Penal Code states that “whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the [main] offence”.
So, even if Wu is charged with abetment of Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act, that should not make a difference in his sentencing, especially if based on the evidence his culpability is as serious as if he was the prime mover. Why did the judge not take that into account in sentencing?
The High Court can come to the Rescue to ensure that “Justice is not only done, but seen to be done”
The High Court has revisionary powers over criminal proceedings and matters in the Subordinate Courts. This is provided for under Section 23 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322).
Section 400 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 goes on to say that in exercising its revisionary powers, the High Court may on its own motion (i.e. without the need for an application by the Public Prosecutor) “call for and examine the record of any criminal proceeding before any Subordinate Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any judgment, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of those proceedings”.
Therefore, it is within the power of the High Court to call for the records of this case and if after examination of those records it comes to the conclusion that justice has not been done in this instance then issue an appropriate order i.e. that Wu be found guilty of an offence under Section 182 of the Penal Code (giving false information to a public servant) and be sentenced to some decent jail time.
With all the publicity surrounding this case and the disquiet that such a manifestly inadequate sentence has caused, can the judges sitting in the High Court turn their eyes the other way? Should not some member of the legal profession residing in Singapore bring this case to the attention of the Chief Justice (say by writing an open letter to him) and ask him to exercise the High Court’s revisionary power?
More Bad News for Dr Woffles Wu
Under Section 53 of the Medical Registration Act, where a registered medical practitioner is found by a Disciplinary Tribunal:
(a) to have been convicted in Singapore or elsewhere of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty;
(b) to have been convicted in Singapore or elsewhere of any offence implying a defect in character which makes him unfit for his profession; or
(c) to have been guilty of such improper act or conduct which, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Tribunal, brings disrepute to his profession
the Disciplinary Tribunal may, among other things, remove him from the register of medical practitioners or suspend him for a period of not less than 3 months and not more than 3 years.
Asking someone else to take the rap for you for a criminal offence is dishonest. It definitely implies a defect in character which makes him unfit for his profession. The defect being a tendency to engage in cover ups. What if he made a mistake while doing one of his “Nips and Tucks”? And with all this publicity, it has ALREADY brought his profession into disrepute.
I would encourage members of the public to remind the Singapore Medical Council that it has these powers and not neglect to exercise them.
.
Rumpole of the Bailey
* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients not all of whom are bad. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio. Access to the laws of Singapore can be found on the web for free at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/home.w3p.
