Kho Jabing was executed on 20/5/2016 despite the fact that there was still an High Court application that was filed but not yet heard and decided by the courts. Kho Jabing applied to stay his execution until his High Court case was heard and disposed off BUT...stay was denied. So, the application was never heard - and a grave injustice was done.
Kho Jabing was executed before even he got an answer for his application for Clemency to the President of Singapore.
Brave lawyers came out, and acted for Kho Jabing filing applications, which were certainly Kho Jabing's right..
But alas, Singapore wanted to execute Kho Jabing on 20/5/2016 - and even court applications were rushed...WHY? WHY THE RUSH TO KILL HIM?
Now, the Attorney Generals Chambers come out with a Statement that, in my opinion, is an 'attack' on the lawyers...I must say that the said lawyers did a great job...and did their best to uphold the cause of justice...
I deal with one allegation..i.e.
'...that Jabing’s eventual death sentence was not proper because one of the Court of Appeal judges, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (“Phang JA”), should not have heard both appeals...'
The AG Chambers seems to say that this point had previously been raised BUT the fact of the matter was that the Court never considered this point before, and never decided on it. Therefore, nothing wrong with raising this point again for the Court to now consider it...as it never before considered it, and ruled on it.
"...Mr Mohan had tried to make the same argument during the review, only to drop it subsequently...."
Now, even if a particular argument was raised and heard by court before - there will be nothing wrong to raise it again, bringing in some new points or new arguments never considered or taken into account before by the courts - more so in a death penalty case. Nobody wants to wrong sent a person to death...
Alas, that same judge, Andrew Phang, sat to decide whether his presence in the previous Court of Appeal was proper...this, in my opinion, is so very wrong. The court was considering whether Andrew Phang's sitting in the re-sentencing Court of Appeal was wrong - and that same Andrew Phang was in the coram that decided this point - odd and improper in my opinion.
CLEMENCY PETITIONS - Kho Jabing never received a reply yet to the Clemency Petition he submitted. It must also be noted many others also applied to Singapore's President for clemency - and this includes the 3 Malaysian Bars(see relevant news report below). But he was still executed...despite there being pending unanswered Clemency Petition/s - WHY?
MEDIA
STATEMENT
25
May 2016
Abuse
of Process of Court in Kho Jabing’s Case
It is a
cherished principle in our legal tradition that a legal practitioner must do
his utmost to uphold the administration of justice. He must also conduct
proceedings before a court in a manner that maintains the fairness, integrity
and efficiency of those proceedings.
2 In
this context, it is important to set the record straight concerning the
multiple applications filed by three lawyers who appeared before the courts on
behalf of convicted murderer Kho Jabing (“Jabing”) on 19 and 20 May 2016 --
namely Mr Gino Hardial Singh (“Mr Singh”), Ms Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss (“Ms
Chong-Aruldoss”) and Mr Alfred Dodwell (“Mr Dodwell”).
3 The
facts are clear. Jabing had brutally murdered a construction worker in 2008.
His case was considered by both the High Court and Court of Appeal twice – once
under the old law, and again after the law on murder was amended. The death
penalty was imposed on him in both instances. After Jabing’s rights of appeal
had been exhausted, the Court of Appeal gave him a further opportunity to
present arguments for his case to be reviewed.
4 In
the conduct of his matter, the actions of Jabing’s three lawyers amounted to an
abuse of court processes. Simply put, this was a case where, after every
legitimate avenue for legal challenge had been attempted and exhausted, legal
opportunism prevailed.
1 5 First,
Jabing’s lawyers repeatedly raised old arguments that had either been dismissed
by the Court or withdrawn by Jabing's previous lawyer in the review, Mr Chandra
Mohan (“Mr Mohan”).
6 For
example, Mr Singh tried to argue that Jabing’s eventual death sentence was not
proper because one of the Court of Appeal judges, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA
(“Phang JA”), should not have heard both appeals. However, Mr Mohan had tried
to make the same argument during the review, only to drop it subsequently. Mr
Singh should have known that it is improper to file a fresh application
containing the same ground that had been previously withdrawn. The Court of
Appeal pointed this out and also held that it was not improper for Phang JA to
have heard both appeals as they dealt with different issues.
7
Another example: On the same day that Mr Singh’s application was due to be
heard before the Court of Appeal, Ms Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Dodwell separately
tried to file applications to argue that the death sentence imposed on Jabing
violated the Constitution. Once again, these arguments were not new, for Mr
Mohan had earlier raised them, and the Court of Appeal had dismissed them. Mr
Dodwell eventually dropped his application, after the Court queried as to why
both lawyers had attempted to file nearly identical applications.
8
Second, knowing that the criminal process had been exhausted, Ms Chong Aruldoss
and Mr Dodwell tried to skirt around the law by raising their arguments under
the civil process. Both should have known full well that this type of
collateral attack on a criminal decision was an abuse of the legal process.
9
Third, Ms Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Dodwell tried to have the execution stayed, and
asked for the hearing of both Ms Chong-Aruldoss’ application and her subsequent
appeal after she failed to get a stay of execution to be postponed on the basis
that they had not had sufficient time to prepare for the matter. And
notwithstanding what he told the Court, Mr Dodwell was eventually able to argue
the
2 appeal.
10 The
actions of Mr Singh, Mr Dodwell and Ms Chong-Aruldoss are not in keeping with
the paramount duty a lawyer owes to the Court. It is wrong for any lawyer to
assert that his duty to the client allows the court’s processes to be abused.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS
Media
and Communications Unit
Source: AGC Singapore Website
AGC rebuking lawyers who took-up Kho Jabing’s case, ex-LawSoc President speaks up
The Attorney-General’s Chambers suggested on Wednesday (25 may) that
the lawyers of convicted murderer Jabing Kho had abused court processes
in his case, by filing multiple court applications last week in a bid to
delay their client’s execution. Two of the three lawyers identified by
AGC, Alfred Dodwell and Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, have given a
hard-hitting rebuttal to such allegations (see this: http://theindependent.sg/agcs-media-statement-is-not-gospel-truth-lawyer-alfred-dodwell-hits-back/)
Now, a former President of the Law Society, Mr Peter Low, has jumped in to defend the lawyers who defended the convicted murderer. We republish Mr Low’s Facebook note in full.
Of A Lawyer’s Role In A Public Interest Case
Coming back from interviewing a capital-case client (assigned by the Supreme Court, for which I’ll be paid an honorarium, instead of regular professional fees), here’s my response to AGC’s Press Statement of 25 May 2016.
Jeannette Aruldoss-Chong and Alfred Dodwell honestly thought that they had legitimate reasons to take up the cause of Kho Jabing. Jeannette even paid – from her own pocket – the court fees for filing the court documents and guaranteed the $20,000 deposit for the appeal costs of the Attorney-General. And, both Jeannette and Alfred sacrificed billable hours (and, sleep) to take up the case. Furthest from their minds was “legal opportunism,” whatever that might mean.
In the last 3 over decades, not many senior private sector lawyers have willingly stepped forward to accept unpopular court cases. I hope the AGC’s Press Statement (25 May 2016) will not deter other private sector lawyers from representing clients in public interest litigation, against government agencies and government leaders.
BTW, here’s a statement which our apex court endorsed about the role of lawyers in unpopular causes – and pro bono work. Even in an “apparently hopeless case.”
“It is easier, pleasanter and more advantageous professionally for barristers to advise, represent or defend those who are decent and reasonable and likely to succeed in their action or their defence than those who are unpleasant, unreasonable, disreputable, and have an apparently hopeless case. Yet it would be tragic if our legal system came to provide no reputable defendants, representatives or advisers for the latter.” Per Lord Peace in Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 1914, as affirmed by our Court of Appeal in Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew & Anor [1998] 1 SLR 97 - The Independent, 26/5/2016
AGC slams lawyers in last-ditch Kho Jabing appeals for abusing court processes
SINGAPORE — In a strongly-worded statement, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on Wednesday (May 25) slammed the three lawyers who represented convicted murderer Kho Jabing for abusing court processes and demonstrating “legal opportunism”, in their last-ditch attempts to save him from the gallows last week.
Kho, a Sarawakian, was executed last Friday afternoon after he had gone before the Court of Appeal five times, with the final two challenges mounted by Mr Gino Hardial Singh last Wednesday and by Mrs Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss a day before the execution was due to take place. Mr Alfred Dodwell was then roped in by Mrs Chong-Aruldoss to argue an appeal against the court’s dismissal of her application.
The apex court had thrown out both appeals, on the basis that they were rehashed arguments, and the judges rapped Mrs Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Dodwell in particular for abusing the process of the court. The judges said such actions could not be allowed or they would “throw the whole system of justice into disrepute”.
Agreeing with the judges, the AGC said in its statement on Wednesday that the actions of the three lawyers were not in keeping with the “paramount duty a lawyer owes to the court”. It added: “It is wrong for any lawyer to assert that his duty to the clients allows the court’s processes to be abused.”
The AGC noted that it is a “cherished principle in our legal tradition that a legal practitioner must do his utmost to uphold the administration of justice”. “He must also conduct proceedings before a court in a manner that maintains the fairness, integrity and efficiency of those proceedings,” it said. “In this context, it is important to set the record straight concerning the multiple applications filed by (Mr Singh, Mrs Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Dodwell).”
The AGC stressed that the facts are clear: Kho had brutally murdered a construction worker in 2008. “His case was considered by both the High Court and Court of Appeal twice — once under the old law, and again after the law on murder was amended. The death penalty was imposed on him in both instances,” the AGC pointed out.
After Kho’s rights of appeal had been exhausted, the Court of Appeal gave him a further opportunity to present arguments for his case to be reviewed. The AGC said: “In the conduct of his matter, the actions of Jabing’s three lawyers amounted to an abuse of court processes. Simply put, this was a case where, after every legitimate avenue for legal challenge had been attempted and exhausted, legal opportunism prevailed.”
Kho’s lawyers had repeatedly raised old arguments, which were earlier dismissed by the court or withdrawn by Kho’s previous lawyer Chandra Mohan. Also, knowing that the criminal process had been exhausted, Mrs Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Dodwell “tried to skirt around the law” by raising arguments through the civil route, the AGC said. Pleading for more time to prepare their arguments, they had also tried to have the execution stayed, and asked for the hearing of Mrs Chong Aruldoss’ application and subsequent appeal postponed.
Separately, the Ministry of Home Affairs on Wednesday issued a statement to rebut “several inaccurate points” that have been made. Among other things, the ministry noted that the lawyers had not made new arguments, despite filing various last-minute applications. “It appeared that the sole purpose of the applications was to try and delay the execution which had been set for May 20, 2016,” the statement said.
Kho was first given the mandatory death penalty in 2010, after he killed Chinese construction worker Cao Ruyin near Geylang Drive by bashing him over the head with a tree branch. He mounted a failed challenge against the murder conviction in 2011, but was spared the hangman’s noose two years later when amendments to the mandatory death penalty regime came into effect. The High Court re-sentenced him to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
The prosecution appealed, and his death sentence was re-imposed. He was due to hang on Nov 6 last year but was granted a stay less than 24 hours before he was to be executed, when Mr Mohan contended that he had new evidence. The apex court dismissed the case in April. Kho’s execution was rescheduled to 6am last Friday before the applications by his lawyers.
Following the conclusion of the case, some including lawyer Choo Zhengxi and anti-death penalty campaigner Kirsten Han spoke up for Kho’s lawyers.
“In the best traditions of the bar, Jeannette and Alfred stepped into the breach and argued their client’s case with vigour,” Mr Choo wrote on Facebook. Ms Han shared Mr Choo’s post and thanked “all the lawyers, past and present, who have tried so hard against such massive odds”.
Mrs Chong-Aruldoss and Mr Dodwell also took to social media to give their side of the story.
Mrs Chong Aruldoss said that she had received a call from Kho’s sister, Jumai, who thanked her for her efforts. “I was merely her lawyer acting under her instructions. A lawyer’s job is to explore, pursue and exhaust his/her client’s legal recourses. Jumai would not regret that she had not done enough for her brother. Neither will I regret that I did not do my best for my client,” she said.
Mr Dodwell said the lawyers “firmly believe that Kho Jabing was undeserving of the death penalty”. “So we mounted a constitutional challenge. Only in Singapore can a constitutional challenge be characterised as an abuse of process. If we invoke the supreme law of the land, the courts should not wave it away to hurry toward execution,” he said. - Today Online, 25/5/2016
Bar Council appeals for clemency for Kho Jabing
Malaysian Bar Council hands in letter of appeal for
clemency for death row inmate who is to be hanged after being found
guilty of murder.
VIDEO INSIDE
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Bar Council has joined the list of parties appealing for clemency for death row inmate Kho Jabing in Singapore.
Bar Council Human Rights Committee co-chairman Andrew Khoo today handed in the Bar’s letter of appeal to the Singapore High Commission, representing Bar president Steven Thiru as well as Sabah Law Association president Brenndon Soh and Advocates’ Association of Sarawak president Leonard Shim.
“The question of whether Kho Jabing should die, we respectfully suggest and humbly submit, should not depend on the collective decision of a majority of judges,” the appeal reads.
The Bar pointed out that one Singapore High Court judge and two Singapore Court of Appeal justices had opined that Kho had not displayed a “blatant disregard of human life” and so should not be sentenced to hang.
“The fact that learned judges of Singapore have expressed doubts that Kho Jabing exhibited sufficient mens rea or intention to commit the crime of murder should, in and of itself, give rise to concerns whether Kho Jabing should be made to pay the ultimate price for his crime and be sentenced to hang,” the Bar said.
“If there is any doubt about the level of his intention, and there genuinely is, that doubt must be resolved in Kho Jabing’s favour.”
The Bar however clarified that this was not a questioning of the Singaporean justice system, but rather an appeal for the reconsideration of the case and a grant of mercy.
“We ask Your Excellency to take into account that there is genuine doubt whether a death sentence is justified in this case,” the Bar said.
“The death penalty is an irreversible punishment. Once taken, Kho Jabing’s life cannot be returned to him or his family.”
Kho was convicted of murder in 2010 in Singapore and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on July 30, 2010.
However, after the 2012 review of mandatory death penalties, the High Court re-sentenced Kho to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane on Aug 14, 2013.
However, on Jan 14, 2015, the Court of Appeal re-imposed the death penalty in a three-to-two decision. -
Free Malaysia Today, 18/5/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment