Monday, July 18, 2022

Sabri, Migrant Worker Wrongfully Whipped Before Appeal Heard - 45 Groups Media Statement - 19/7/2022

https://focusmalaysia.my/indonesian-migrant-worker-in-sabah-wrongfully-whipped-before-appeal-heard/

Media Statement (45 GROUPS) – 19/7/2022

Sabri, Migrant Worker Wrongfully Whipped Before Appeal Heard

We the 45 undersigned groups and organizations are shocked that Indonesian migrant worker Sabri bin Umar was whipped at the Tawau Prison on 23/6/2022 despite there being an appeal at the High Court regarding his conviction/sentence by the Session Court which have yet to be heard. The law in Malaysia clearly states that the sentence of whipping shall not be carried out until the appeal is heard and determined.

Convicted Cannot Be Whipped Until Appeal Heard And Decided

Section 311 of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code states,  Except in the case of a sentence of whipping (the execution of which shall be stayed pending appeal), no appeal shall operate as a stay of execution, but the Court below or a Judge may stay execution on any judgment, order, conviction or sentence pending appeal, on such terms as to security for the payment of any money or the performance or non-performance of any act or the suffering of any punishment ordered by or in the judgment, order, conviction or sentence as to the Court below or to the Judge may seem reasonable.

For any other sentence, other than whipping, the convicted is required to file an application for stay of execution pending appeal.

Sabri ‘Wrongly’ Convicted Then Wrongly Whipped On 23/6/2022 Before Appeal Heard

On 19/4/2022, the Session Court convicted Sabri for committing the offence pursuant to Section 6(1)( c) Immigration Act 1959/63, and sentenced him to 11 months imprisonment and 5 whippings. He was unrepresented at that time.

Section 6(1)( c) Immigration Act (1) states that. ‘No person other than a citizen shall enter Malaysia unless- (a)…(c) he is in possession of a valid Pass lawfully issued to him to enter Malaysia; or..’

As such, a documented migrant worker like Sabri bin Umar can never reasonably be found guilty of this Section 6(1)( c) Immigration Act offence, for he was a documented migrant worker and his entry and presence in Malaysia were in accordance to law.

A perusal of court documents revealed that the Immigration documents tendered to the court was FALSE, as it stated that there was no records of entry and exit for Sabri. It failed to disclose the truth, that Sabri was indeed a documented migrant worker for the past about 7 years, and that he was in the employ of one Fu Yee Corporation Sdn Bhd in Tawau, Sabah, Malaysia. His work permit also had been renewed by the Immigration Department in 2022, and should reasonably be valid for a year.

In fact, prosecution had also failed in their duty to properly investigate before charging Sabri. An investigation would have revealed that Sabri was documented worker who cannot be charged for a Section 6(1)( c) Immigration Act. It must be pointed out that Sabri was arrested at his workplace on 5/4/2022. There also seem to be no charges against the employer, Fu Yee Corporation, for harboring or employing an undocumented worker.

The appeal to the High Court was filed on or about 22/4/2022, and this appeal has not yet been heard and decided upon. Sabri was wrongly whipped on 23/6/2022.


Migrant Workers and employers that violate worker rights

For a migrant worker, even after his employment agreement comes to an end, the employer has the duty or responsibility to ensure safe return back to the migrant’s country of origin. Hence, even if the immigration work permit/pass that allows for legal presence ends, an employer has the duty to keep the migrant worker safe, including making needed application for pass/permits to allow legal presence in Malaysia until employer can arrange the return to home country.

Some ‘bad’ employers do sometimes wrongfully terminate, and quickly, even forcibly, send migrant workers back to countries of origin. This denies migrant workers access to avenues of justice to pursue claims of wrongful termination and reinstatement, claims for wages/monies still owing by employers to workers and other legal claims. Unfortunately, in Malaysia many of the avenues of justice including labour departments, industrial relation departments and even courts require physical attendance of the complainant/claimant, failing which it assumes that the migrant worker is no longer interested and the process to ensure justice ends.

Some other worse employers may just cause the cancelation of permits, and then may even cause or facilitate migrants to be arrested, charged and convicted for being undocumented, and then deported.

In the case of Sabri Bin Umar, who is also a union member of the Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU), who claims that he was wrongfully terminated by his employer on 4/4/2022, and then was arrested by police on 5/4/2022 and was detained until charged and convicted on 19/4/2022. However, Sabri bin Umar did manage to file a wrongful dismissal claim in the Industrial Relations Department on 19/4/2022 seeking reinstatement, whereby this process is ongoing.

The employer, who knew that Sabri was not an undocumented worker failed to bring to the attention of the police, prosecutors and court this material fact, which reasonably would have meant Sabri would not be charged, let alone be convicted for being illegally in Malaysia under Section 6(1)( c) Immigration Act. Fu Yee Corporation should be doing the needed to end the current serious miscarriage of justice.

Whipping, a Corporal Punishment must be abolished

Sabri’s case has come to light, but there is concern about whether others have been whipped before their appeal is heard and disposed of. Whipping is a corporal punishment that inflicts serious physical and psychological injury, where victims are known to pass out even before the full sentence is carried out.

The Immigration Act 1959/63 was amended and as of August 2002, and the sentence of whipping was introduced for use against undocumented migrants. According to Prisons Department records, 47,914 foreigners were found to have violated the Immigration Act from 2002 to 2008. Of these, 34,923 were whipped.

The Malaysian Bar is unequivocally and unreservedly is against all forms of corporal punishment, including caning or whipping, in accordance with the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“UNCAT”), and international human rights norms. SUHAKAM (Malaysian National Human Rights Commission) has also long recommended that the Government of Malaysia prohibit the use of corporal punishment of caning and whipping.

Therefore, we 

a)    Call for Malaysia to immediately apologize and do the needful to ensure justice be done for the wrongful or illegal whipping of Sabri Bin Umar before his criminal appeal/s is heard and determined, and that actions be taken against those responsible;

b)   Call for the immediate abolition of whipping, a form of corporal punishment in Malaysia.

c)    Call on Malaysia to immediately ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Charles Hector

Apolinar Z Tolentino, Jr.

 

For and on behalf of the 45 organisations listed below

 

ALIRAN

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Building and Wood Workers International (BWI) Asia Pacific Region

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

Asosasyon ng mga Makabayang Manggagawang Pilipino Overseas (AMMPO) in Malaysia

Black Women for Wages for Housework

Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances, CAGED

Civil Society Action Committee

Domestic Caretaker Union (DCU), Taoyuan City. Taiwan

Federasi SERBUK, Indonesia

Federasi Serikat Buruh Kehutanan Perkayuan dan Pertanian Serikat Buruh Sejahtera Indonesia (HUKATAN)

Federation of Indonesia Workers’ Awakening (FKUI)

Haiti Action Committee

Hong Kong Federation of Asian Domestic Workers Unions, Hong Kong

International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF)

International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, Malaysia

Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center (jiadep.org)

Koalisi Buruh Migran Berdaulat, Indonesia

Labour Law Reform Coalition(LRRC), Malaysia

Malay Forest Officers Union (MFOU), Malaysia

Malaysian Trade Union Congress Sarawak (MTUC – Sarawak), Malaysia

Migrant Care, Indonesia

Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA)

National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers, Malaysia

Network of Action For Migrants in Malaysia(NAMM)

North South Initiative(NSI)

Persatuan Pekerja Rumah Tangga Indonesia Migran (PERTIMIG), Malaysia.

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS), Malaysia

Sabah Plantation Industry Employees Union (SPIEU)

Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU)

Sarawak Bank Employees Union (SBEU), Malaysia

Sarawak Dayak Iban Association

SETEM Catalunya,Spain

Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign

Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN)

Sedane Labour Resources Centre, Indonesia

South Africa Domestic Service and Allied Workers Union (SADSAWU), South Africa

Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy

The Cross-Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants, Lebanon

The William Gomes Podcast, United Kingdom

Timber Employees Union of Peninsular Malaysia (TEUPM)

TIEUS (Timber Industry Employee Union Sarawak)

United Domestic Workers of the Philippines , Philippines

Union of Forestry Employees Sarawak (UFES), Malaysia

Women of Color/ Global Women’s Strike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, July 15, 2022

LAUNCH OF CAMPAIGN AGAINST TORTURE AND DEATHS IN CUSTODY 16 JULY 2022 (Saturday) @ KLSCAH, 8.30 PM

 

Written by admin   
Monday, 04 July 2022 14:51
THE LAUNCH OF CAMPAIGN AGAINST TORTURE AND DEATHS IN CUSTODY
16 JULY 2022 (Saturday) @ KLSCAH, 8.30 PM

 

Six civil society organisations—Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy, Eliminating Deaths in Custody Together, Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia, Suara Rakyat Malaysia, Civil Rights Committee of KLSCAH and North South Initiative—will launch the campaign against torture and deaths in custody on Saturday,16 July 2022 at the KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH). The event will be held at its MCPA hall and will commence at 8.30pm.

We cordially invite members of the public to join us on Saturday, 16 July 2022 at the KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.

In conjunction with the launch of the campaign, the co-organisers will also pay tribute to senior social activist Haris Ibrahim.

 


Please click the link to RSVP : https://forms.gle/XmY29DX6TThKHuEX6
CAMPAIGN AGAINST TORTURE AND DEATHS IN CUSTODY PDF Print E-mail

Sunday, June 19, 2022

19 Groups - Stop Harassment of the Malaysian Bar and Lawyers – Respect Right to Peaceful Assembly

 Media Statement – 20/6/2022

Stop Harassment of the Malaysian Bar and Lawyers – Respect Right to Peaceful Assembly

We, the 19 undersigned groups and organizations are appalled by the police actions preventing about 500 lawyers of the Malaysian Bar from exercising their right to peaceful assembly in the "Walk for Judicial independence" on 17/6/2022, whereby the lawyers who had gathered at Padang Merbok car park to walk to Parliament, about a kilometer away, to hand over a Memorandum to the Prime Minister were wrongly prevented from doing so.

This was despite the fact that the representative of the Prime Minister had apparently made arrangement for the receipt of the protest note in Parliament. Later, the Deputy Law Minister Mas Ermieyati Samsudin, on behalf of the Prime Minister, had to go to the meeting point to accept the memorandum from the Bar President.

It was reported that ‘…police personnel formed a human chain to disallow some lawyers from attempting to leave the area…A police light strike force unit was also called in to provide further security after several lawyers attempted to leave the area but were denied.’(Star, 18/6/2022)

Police harassment continuing

It is a wrong misconception that the police is the ‘permission giver’ before one can freely exercise one’s right to peaceful assembly. ‘The task of the police is to facilitate and not frustrate the exercise of that right’ is a position taken by the courts and also the Bar.

The harassment against the Malaysian Bar and the lawyers continues when Dang Wangi OCPD ACP Noor Dellhan Yahaya said today the police will call up all participants of the "Walk for Judicial independence" march by the Malaysian Bar to give their statements, despite blocking the walk from occurring. (Malay Mail, 17/6/2022).

Dang Wangi OCPD Asst Comm Noor Dellhan Yahaya confirmed the matter when contacted Saturday (June 18). “They will be called to give their statements next week. All participants that were present will be called," he said. [Star, 18/6/2022]"

Such conduct of State and State agents, is contrary to justice and human rights, and may deter future exercise of peoples’ right to peaceful assembly in Malaysia.

Malaysian Bar’s right denied despite following the law

The Malaysian Bar sent the required notification to the police on 7/6/2022, more than 5 days before the intended march. According to law, within 3 days from the receipt of notification, the police must inform the organizer of any restrictions or conditions, and there was none in this case within the stipulated time.

On about 16/6/2022, a day before the intended march, the police suddenly ‘denied permission’ for the lawyers to march to Parliament, and allowed them to just assemble at the meeting point in Padang Merbok. It would have been most frustrating, for the hundreds of lawyer, some of who travelled hundreds of kilometers to march to Parliament to find themselves confined to a car park far away from the public eye.

The Bar rightfully took the position in accordance to law, that ‘…the assembly shall proceed as proposed in the notification…’ – the lawyers will gather and march to Parliament.

Section 14 (1) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 states that, ‘…The Officer in Charge of the Police District shall respond to the notification under subsection 9(1) within three days of the receipt of the notification and shall, in the response, inform the organizer of the restrictions and conditions imposed under section 15, if any…’ Section 14(2) clearly says that ‘If the Officer in Charge of the Police District does not respond to the notification in accordance with subsection (1), the assembly shall proceed as proposed in the notification. “

Therefore, it is clear that the police had violated the law, and the right to peaceful assembly of the lawyers, when they prevented the Bar from marching to Parliament on 17/6/2022.

Judges are not above the law - "Walk for Judicial independence"

The march to Parliament was pursuant to a Resolution adopted at the Malaysian Bar Extraordinary General Meeting held on 27/5/2022.

The Malaysian Bar, while taking the position that Superior Court judges ‘…are not above the law and must be made accountable for crimes they commit, and that law enforcement agencies must be allowed to carry out their respective tasks in accordance with the law and the Federal Constitution…’, but how such investigations are carried out matters. The Bar, for example,  condemned ‘…the unprecedented manner in which the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) has publicly announced the commencement of criminal investigation of a Superior Court Judge, and disclosed the name of the judge to the public, for an indefinite period and without proper closure, which is tantamount to an act of intimidation against the Judiciary…’.

There, we call for

a)      The immediate end of harassment of the Malaysian Bar and lawyers by the police. Police must discontinue plans of calling for investigation all organizers and participants of "Walk for Judicial independence";

b)     The relevant police officers, Inspector General of Police, the Minister in charge and/or the Government to forthwith tender a public apology to the Malaysian Bar and lawyers for their actions/omissions that frustrated the exercise of the lawyers’ right of peaceful assembly; and

c)      Malaysia to defend and promote the right of peaceful assembly, which must also include human rights education to police and other law enforcement bodies.

Charles Hector

Adrian Pereira

 

For and on behalf of the following 19 groups

 

ALIRAN

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

North South Initiative

Building and Wood Workers International (BWI) Asia Pacific Region

Black Women for Wages for Housework

Centre for Human Rights Research & Advocacy (CENTHRA)

Citizen Action Group on Enforced Disappearance (CAGED)

Community Resource Centre, Thailand

Haiti Action Committee

NAMM (Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia)

OHMSI Sdn Bhd

Payday Men’s Network (UK/US)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

Sisters in Islam

Tenaganita

Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy

The William Gomes Podcast, UK

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

Women of Color/Global Women’s Strike

PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Bar’s negotiations with the police for lawyers to march from Padang Merbok to the Parliament building for its “Walk for judicial independence” reportedly failed, FMT reports.

According to the report, the police allowed only 20 lawyers to march to the Parliament building to hand over a memorandum, but the Bar did not agree with this.

The lawyers tried to go ahead with the march but failed to break through the police human barricade formed at both ends of the Padang Merbok car park.

About 500 lawyers had gathered for the march, but they were held back by the strong police presence.

Among those present were former attorney-general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas and politicians from parties like DAP, PKR and Muda. - Sun Daily, 17/6/2022

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Group: Ordering Nagaenthran’s lawyers to pay cost an affront to justice (Malaysiakini)

 

mk-logo
News
Group: Ordering Nagaenthran’s lawyers to pay cost an affront to justice
Published:  May 31, 2022 5:21 PM
Updated: 5:22 PM

A group comprising 20 civil society organisations has criticised Singapore’s Court of Appeal for ordering Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam’s lawyers to personally pay the cost of S$20,000 (RM64,000) to the country’s Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

In a statement, they said the AGC had initially sought S$40,000 from the lawyers in question, M Ravi and Violet Netto, for setting out to delay Nagaenthran’s execution by filing unmeritorious applications.

This was said to have resulted in the incursion of unnecessary costs.

“What is even more shocking is that the five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, makes this cost order a month after the said lawyers’ client, Nagaenthran, had been executed,” said the group.

The statement was co-signed by 20 local and international civil society groups including Aliran, Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet), the North-South Initiative, Black Women for Wages for Housework, and Lawyers Collective (India).

They described such an order as an affront to the right to a fair trial and justice.

“This will seriously impact the ability of lawyers and their clients from doing the needful, including the filing of needed applications in the defence of their clients.

“Whilst in some jurisdictions, it seems possible that the court can order the defendant/accused/convicted person to pay the cost to the prosecution, it is rare.

“Such laws or practices ought to be repealed,” they said.

They cited the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia’s 2002 statement that it is inappropriate for a defendant who is guilty to pay costs to the prosecution given that they would have already been subject to some form of court-ordered penalty.

The group noted that in this case, the Singapore court did not order the defendant to pay the cost to the prosecution.

“The existence of laws, and this action of the Singapore court ordering lawyers to personally pay the cost of prosecution, is a violation of, amongst others, of Rule 16 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,” they said.

Rule 16 states that governments are to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all professional duties without any form of intimidation and improper interference.

Additionally, it states that lawyers are not to be threatened with prosecution, economic or any other sanctions for actions done in their line of duty, standards and ethics.

The group called on the Singaporean government to immediately repeal its laws that allow for the accused, the convicted or their lawyers to be ordered to pay costs to the prosecution in criminal trials.

“It must be appreciated that new evidence or relevant legal points or arguments may arise at different times, warranting additional applications.

“Such additional applications should never be seen as an abuse of the court process, more so in death penalty cases.

“Hence, we call on Singapore to immediately repeal laws that allow for the accused/convicted and/or their lawyers to be ordered to pay the cost to the prosecution in criminal trials, an example being Part 18 of Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code,” they said.

Section 355 provides for the accused or convicted to pay the cost “to any other party to the proceedings”, which in criminal trials would be the prosecution.

Section 357 provides the possibility that a lawyer may end up paying the cost to the prosecution.

The group argued that it is reasonable for the convicted to be ordered to pay compensation or damages to the victims of the crime.

However, they said, there is no justification for orders to pay prosecution costs in a criminal trial, more so in a death penalty case.

“At end of the day, it is the role of the courts to consider any or all evidence and legal arguments, irrespective of how late it comes to the attention of the court to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice especially when the convicted may be executed.”

Mentally impaired

Nagaenthran was a 33-year-old mentally impaired Malaysian, who was sentenced for a drug trafficking offence in Singapore.

He had been on death row for more than a decade for trafficking about 42.7g of heroin into Singapore, which has some of the world's toughest narcotics laws.

His lawyers had said he has a mild intellectual disability due to his lower-than-average IQ of 69.

Nagaenthran was scheduled to hang on Nov 10 last year but was granted a stay of execution on Nov 8 after his Singaporean lawyer M Ravi filed an 11th-hour constitutional challenge.

Although the Singapore High Court dismissed the challenge, it allowed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was supposed to be heard in November but was postponed to March this year when Nagaenthran tested positive for Covid-19 on Nov 9, 2021.

However, his appeal was again rejected on March 29 this year.

Nagaenthran was executed April 27 after his mother failed, the day before, in her last-ditch legal challenge to set aside his conviction and death sentence.- Malaysiakini, 31/5/2022

Ordering Lawyer To Personally Pay Cost Of SGD20,000 To Attorney General’s Chambers In A Criminal Trial Is A Violation Of The Right To Fair Trial, And A Harassment Of Lawyers - 20 Groups

 

Media Statement – 1/6/2022

Singapore’s Court Ordering  Lawyer To Personally Pay Cost Of SGD20,000 To Attorney General’s Chambers In A Criminal Trial Is A Violation Of The Right To Fair Trial, And A Harassment Of Lawyers

We, the 20 undersigned groups/organizations are perturbed to hear that the Singapore Court of Appeal ordered on Wednesday (25/5/2022) that the 2 lawyers that represented Malaysian Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, being Mr M. Ravi and Ms Violet Netto to personally pay cost of SGD20,000(13,621 Euro/RM64,000) to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). (Straits Times, 25/5/2022). The AGC had originally sought personal costs totaling $40,000 against Mr Ravi and Ms Netto for setting out to delay Nagaenthran's execution by filing unmeritorious applications, which caused it to incur unnecessary costs.

Nagaenthran was convicted of trafficking 42.72g of heroin in 2010 and given the mandatory death penalty. He, despite being a person suffering from an intellectual disability with an IQ of 69, was subsequently hanged to death at Changi Prison Complex on April 27.

What is even more shocking is that the five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, makes this cost order after a month after the said lawyers’ client, Nagaenthran, had been executed.

RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL

It is an affront to the right to a fair trial and justice, if the defendant/accused/convicted and/or their lawyer is placed at risk of retaliation by prosecutors and/or courts, including the possibility of being penalized by having lawyers pay cost of the prosecution in a criminal case. This will seriously impact the ability of lawyers and their client/s doing the needful including the filing of needed application/s in the defence of their client.

Whilst in some jurisdictions, it seems possible that the court can order the defendant/accused/convicted person to pay cost to the prosecution, it is rare. Such laws or practice ought to be repealed.

In 2002 the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia stated that ‘…it is inappropriate for a Defendant who is guilty to pay costs to the Prosecution given that he or she would have already been subject to some other form of court-ordered penalty...’ Another reason for not awarding costs is that the ‘…Prosecution team is supported by state resources and is serving a public duty….’

VIOLATION OF STATE’S OBLIGATION TO PROTECT LAWYERS

In this case, the Singapore court did not order the defendant/accused/convicted to pay cost to the prosecution, but ordered the lawyers that had acted for him to PERSONALLY pay cost to the prosecution. The act of ‘attacking’ lawyers directly for things done whilst acting for a client is totally unacceptable and unjust.

Rule 18 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, a UN Instrument adopted in 1990, states that, ‘Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions.’ It must be noted that any applications made to court by a lawyer are done with the instructions and approval of their client/s, and, as such, even if there are to be cost orders by the court, such cost orders ought to be against the client, being the accused or convicted in criminal cases, but never against the lawyer personally.

The existence of laws, and this action of the Singapore Court ordering lawyers to personally pay cost of prosecution, is a violation of, amongst others, of Rule 16 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

Rule 16 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers states, ‘Governments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b… and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.

The existence of laws, that today allows the court to order an accused or convicted, and/or their lawyer to pay costs to the prosecution by reason of the manner the defence of the person was conducted through the legal process or courts would reasonably be considered an intimidation, harassment and/or an improper interference with the right to a fair trial, and the professional duties of a lawyer. It is a violation of human rights and justice, amongst others, of Rule 16.

UNJUST TO NOT BRING TO ATTENTION OF COURT LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE

Such laws and practice may deter lawyers from filing needed applications to bring to the attention of the court relevant evidence, new legal arguments or points of law – and this may lead to a miscarriage of justice. We note that ultimately in the criminal justice system, it is the courts and judges that ultimately decide, and no one else, be it the prosecution or the accused (or their lawyer), on merits of any application and whether it will affect conviction or sentence.

Lawyers and/or prosecutors should never decide on their own whether to bring it to the attention of the court or not, even if it comes to their attention at the 11th hour. They have no choice but to bring it to the attention of the courts that will consider and make a just decision.

 Not bringing some matters for fear of cost orders may lead to a miscarriage of justice. It must be appreciated, that new evidence or relevant legal points or arguments may arise at different times, warranting additional applications. Such additional applications should never be seen as an abuse of the court process, more so in death penalty cases.

Hence, we call on Singapore to immediately repeal of laws that allows for the accused/convicted and/or their lawyers to be ordered to pay cost to the prosecution in criminal trials, an example, being Part 18 of Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code. Section 355 in this part, for example, provides for an accused convicted to pay cost to ‘to any other party to the proceedings’, which in criminal trials would be the prosecution. Section 357 provides the possibility that a lawyer may end up paying cost to prosecution.

CONVICTED PAYING COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS JUST, BUT NOT ORDER FOR CONVICTED (OR LAWYER) TO PAY PROSECUTION COST IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

It is reasonable that the convicted be ordered to pay compensation or damages to the victims of the crime, but there is no justification for orders to pay prosecution cost in a criminal trial, more so in a death penalty case.

An order for costs and/or compensation to a successful Defendant/accused who has had his or her charges dismissed, withdrawn or been acquitted is also just. The purpose of such an order for costs is to compensate and indemnify the Defendant for the costs, loss of liberty and other losses he or she has incurred or suffered in the process of the legal proceedings.

A client also has a cause of action against his/her own lawyer for, amongst others, professional negligence. A lawyer too may be subjected disciplinary proceeding for breach of professional ethics or conduct. BUT, a lawyer should never be made to pay personally cost of prosecution in a criminal case where he acts for the accused/convicted.

STATE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, JUDGES AND LAWYERS – PROFESSIONALISM TO ENSURE JUSTICE

We are also appalled by the involvement of the AGC or the prosecution in this application for the lawyers to personally pay cost. Prosecution should act professionally and independently, with the objective of ensuring that there are no miscarriage of justice. It is best that prosecution is not affected emotionally, or is seen to be targeting or retaliating against lawyers. The AGC, in this case, should never have applied for or asked for the lawyers to personally pay cost.

Based on the Singapore AGC’s past Press Releases, it appears that in 22/2/2022, the Attorney Genaral’s Chambers did file two disciplinary complaints to the Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) against Mr Ravi and another lawyer. On 23/10/2020, the Attorney-General’s Chambers also did file a disciplinary complaint to the Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) against Mr Ravi Madasamy.

Such past incidents, where the AGC who also is the Public Prosecutor, filing disciplinary complaints against individual lawyers is of concern, it raises the perception that the State, the AGC and/or the Public Prosecutor’s independence and professionalism may be emotionally compromised. The Public Prosecutor and/or AGC should never be seen targeting or going after specific lawyers that appeared in criminal trials as lawyers acting for the accused/convicted.

We urge that Singapore, the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and lawyers act professionally and independently to ensure the Right To A Fair Trial, and lawyers in trials, especially criminal trials, are not subject any form of intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference in their carrying out the professional responsibility as lawyers for the accused/convicted. At end of end of the day, it is the role of the Courts to consider any or all evidence and legal arguments, irrespective of how late it comes to the attention of the Court to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice especially when the convicted may be executed.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf the listed 20 groups

 

ALIRAN

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Black Women for Wages for Housework

Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED), Malaysia

German Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (GCADP)

Haiti Action Committee

International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific

Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center

Justice Project Pakistan (Lahore, Pakistan)

Lawyers Collective, India

Legal Action for Women, United Kingdom

NAMM (Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia)

North South Initiative

Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor & KL

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

Safety and Rights Society (SRS), Bangladesh

The William Gomes Podcast, United Kingdom

Transformative Justice Collective

Women of Color Global Women’s Strike

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

 

 

 See earlier post:-

Lawyers for Malaysian drug trafficker ordered to pay SGD20,000 prosecution costs - The law/practice must be abolished to ensure Right To Fair Trial?

For the Judgment - 

Singapore EX TEMPORE Judgment - where court ordered lawyers in death penalty CRIMINAL case to pay cost personally to Attorney General

Lawyers ordered to pay S$20,000 for incurring ‘unnecessary court costs’

Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam, who was executed on April 27, had been on death row since 2010 for smuggling 42.7gm of heroin into Singapore.

PETALING JAYA: The two lawyers who acted for executed Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam were yesterday ordered to pay S$20,000 (about RM64,000) in costs to the Singapore Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

M Ravi.

According to a report in The Straits Times, the AGC had originally sought personal costs totalling S$40,000 against M Ravi and Violet Netto for delaying Nagaenthran’s execution by filing “unmeritorious applications”, which caused the court to incur unnecessary costs.

A five-member Court of Appeal panel led by chief justice Sundaresh Menon yesterday said it would be apparent to any “reasonable defence counsel that the case advanced by the duo lacked factual basis”.

Instead of putting their best case forward at the first instance, it said, the lawyers “drip fed” the supposed evidence and tendered documents at the last possible moment.

Nagaenthran, who was executed on April 27, had been on death row since 2010 for smuggling 42.7gm of heroin into Singapore.

During the trial, he was declared to be a person suffering from an intellectual disability with an IQ of 69.

However, the court found him to be not “substantially impaired” and that he knew fully well that he was carrying out an illegal act, according to reports.

Days before he was scheduled to be hanged on Nov 10 last year, Ravi filed an application seeking judicial review of the impending execution.

Arguing that Nagaenthran was mentally disabled, he also filed another application asking for a stay of execution to allow Nagaenthran to be assessed by a panel of psychiatrists.

However, the court dismissed the legal actions, saying the case was baseless and that there was no admissible evidence of any decline in Nagaenthran’s mental condition.

It also said the proceedings amounted to an abuse of the court’s processes and were seemingly conducted with the aim of delaying the execution. - FMT, 26/5/2022

 

Lawyers for Malaysian drug trafficker ordered to pay $20,000 for incurring unnecessary costs

The court has the power to order personal costs against a lawyer who causes the incurring of unnecessary costs. PHOTO: ST FILE

SINGAPORE - The two lawyers who acted for Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam in a last-ditch attempt to halt his execution were on Wednesday (May 25) ordered to pay $20,000 in costs to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

Mr M. Ravi, who did most of the work, was ordered by the Court of Appeal to bear 75 per cent of the costs, while Ms Violet Netto, who later took over as the lawyer on record, was held liable for 25 per cent.

The AGC had originally sought personal costs totalling $40,000 against Mr Ravi and Ms Netto for setting out to delay Nagaenthran's execution by filing unmeritorious applications, which caused it to incur unnecessary costs.

Under the law, the court has the power to order personal costs against a lawyer who causes the incurring of unnecessary costs by acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently.

On Wednesday, a five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said it would be apparent to any reasonable defence counsel that the case advanced by the duo lacked factual basis.

The court reiterated that the way the case had been conducted was a blatant and egregious abuse of the court process.

Instead of putting their best case forward at the first instance, the lawyers "drip fed" the supposed evidence and tendered documents at the last possible moment, said the court.

The court also rejected Mr Ravi's argument that he and Ms Netto cannot be made to pay personal costs as they are no longer practising lawyers.

Nagaenthran was convicted of trafficking 42.72g of heroin in 2010 and given the mandatory death penalty. His appeals against his conviction and sentence were dismissed in 2011.

Over the years, Nagaenthran filed a total of seven applications to challenge his death sentence.

Days before he was scheduled to be hanged on Nov 10 last year, Mr Ravi filed an applicaton seeking judicial review of the impending execution.

Mr Ravi also filed another application, asking for a stay of execution for Nagaenthran to be assessed by a panel of psychiatrists.

The main argument was that the death sentence could not be carried out because Nagaenthran was mentally disabled.

The case was argued by Ms Netto, assisted by Mr Ravi, before the apex court on March 1.

On March 29, the court dismissed the legal actions, saying that the case was baseless and that there was no admissible evidence of any decline in Nagaenthran's mental condition.

The court said the proceedings brought by Nagaenthran amounted to an abuse of the court's processes and had been conducted with seeming aim of delaying his execution.

On April 26, a last-minute application by Nagaenthran's mother to halt his rescheduled execution was dismissed by the court.

He was hanged at Changi Prison Complex on April 27. - Straits Times, 25/5/2022