KUALA LUMPUR – Civil rights groups are urging Singapore and its judiciary to act independently and professionally to ensure lawyers in criminal trials are not subject to intimidation or interference when carrying out their jobs.
This follows the republic’s Court of Appeal’s decision to order two lawyers, M. Ravi and Violet Netto, who represented the executed Malaysian Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, to pay S$20,000 (about RM64,000) in costs to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
On behalf of 20 organisations, Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) coordinator Charles Hector said the order was labelled as an “affront to the right to a fair trial and justice” as defendants and their lawyers are placed at risk of retaliation from prosecutors.
“The act of attacking lawyers directly for things done whilst acting for a client is totally unacceptable and unjust,” he said, adding that the groups are also appalled by the involvement of the AGC in the application for the lawyers to personally pay costs.
In a statement today, he alleged that there is a perception that the state’s independence and professionalism are being emotionally compromised, referencing past disciplinary complaints made by the AGC against Ravi and another lawyer.
“The public prosecutor and AGC should never be seen targeting or going after specific lawyers that appeared in criminal trials as lawyers acting for the accused.”
Ravi had in November claimed he was being harassed by the AGC after a personal cost application was filed against him, which sought to make the lawyer foot all legal and court costs in the case, instead of his clients.
Noting that Part 18 (Sections 355 and 357) of Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code provides for the possibility of accused individuals or their lawyers to pay costs to the prosecution in criminal trials, Hector urged Singapore to repeal such laws for the sake of ensuring fair trials.
“Such laws and practices may deter lawyers from filing needed applications to bring the court’s attention to relevant evidence, new legal arguments or points of law. This could then lead to a miscarriage of justice.
“At the end of the day, it is the role of the courts to consider any and all evidence and legal evidence, irrespective of how late it is brought up in court, to ensure the proper course of justice especially when the convicted faces execution.”
The statement today was also signed by Aliran, International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia and Workers Hub For Change.
On May 25, The Straits Times reported that Singapore’s AGC had originally sought personal costs totalling S$40,000 against the lawyers 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 said that instead of presenting their best case from the start, the lawyers “drip fed” supposed evidence and tendered documents at the eleventh hour.
Nagaenthran was executed on April 27 after 11 years on death row and repeated pleas to Singapore President Halimah Yacob for a last-minute clemency.
In its dismissal of Nagaenthran’s appeal for a stay of execution, the appellate court had also chided Ravi for his supposedly “disrespectful” conduct within the courtroom. – The Vibes, May 31, 2022
.jpeg)
