It may of be of interest that the law stipulates specifically when it could be the same High Court Judge, or the same Court of Appeal judge can sit - and, as such, when Andrew Phang sat in the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal from the re-sentencing High Court, and subsequent Court of Appeal applications involving Kho Jabing, he should not have... The grounds in this judgment, in my opinion, is wrong.
Would not the legal maxim of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, ie, the express mention of one matter, implies the exclusion of matters which have not been mentioned? Singapore law was very specific as to when the same judge could have heard the matter? For the Court of Appeal Judge,
It is clear that JA Phang, who was in the coram of the Court of Appeal that considered the original appeal against conviction, should or could have only been in the coram of the Court of Appeal that affirmed the sentence, hence deciding that the case will not be remitted back to the High Court for re-sentencing; OR in the coram of the Court of Appeal that remitted the case back to the High Court for re-sentencing.There is no provision in the Act that allows for JA Phang to sit in the coram of the Court of Appeal that hears an appeal on the decision of re-sentencing High Court.
The question of the effect of Andrew Phang in the Court of Appeal(re-sentencing) was in fact never considered or determined by any court before. Mistakes of a previous lawyer, should never prejudice the accused, especially one facing the death penalty..
MADPET CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE HEARING OF APPLICATION BY KHO JABING CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF A COURT OF APPEAL DECISION BECAUSE JA PHANG WAS ON THAT CORAM.?
MADPET:- QUESTIONABLE VALIDITY OF THE COURT OF APPEAL THAT RE-SENTENCED KHO JABING TO DEATH REASON ENOUGH FOR IMMEDIATE STAY OF EXECUTION OF KHO JABING, NOW SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY 20/5/2016
Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor  SGCA 36
|Case Number||:||Criminal Motion No 13 of 2016|
|Decision Date||:||19 May 2016|
|Tribunal/Court||:||Court of Appeal|
|Coram||:||Chao Hick Tin JA; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; Woo Bih Li J; Lee Seiu Kin J; Chan Seng Onn J|
|Counsel Name(s)||:||Gino Hardial Singh (Prestige Law LLP) for the applicant; Francis Ng, Ruth Teng, and Foong Leong Parn (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.|
|Parties||:||Kho Jabing — Public Prosecutor|
19 May 2016