Rilek1Corner

Tag: Appeal

  • Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I Firmly Believe The Gov Should Have Answered In Parliament Instead Of Challenging A Parliamentarian To Go To Court.

    Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I Firmly Believe The Gov Should Have Answered In Parliament Instead Of Challenging A Parliamentarian To Go To Court.

    Court of Appeal verdict
    As you know by now, the Court of Appeal has dismissed my appeal. I am disappointed, as are all my supporters, because we had hoped to contest in this PE (through the deliberative track) after I lost narrowly (0.34%) in PE 2011. Nevertheless, I am very comforted to know that many of you were strongly supporting me in this case. I never felt alone. For that, I sincerely thank every one of you.

    Some may say that my court application was a fool’s errand. But I do not see it that way. When MP Sylvia Lim asked the Government in Parliament why they chose to start the count of 5 presidential terms with President Wee Kim Wee (resulting in 2017 being a reserved election year), the Government challenged her to go to Court for an answer. That is wrong and I felt the need to respond. I firmly believe the Government should have answered in Parliament instead of challenging a Parliamentarian to go to Court.

    So I filed a case to argue what most Singaporeans felt was proper, that the count should start with the 1st Elected President Ong Teng Cheong (which would result in 2023 being a reserved election year). The Court of Appeal, however, decided that as a matter of law, the Government has discretion to start the count with President Wee Kim Wee. They issued a 66 page long judgment detailing full legal reasons. Now that the Court of Appeal has had the final say, I accept the verdict – but with a heavy heart.

    My team and I will now rest, regroup and re-energise ourselves. I promise you, I will always speak up for Singaporeans and do my very best for our country.

    Meanwhile, let me be first to wish the participants of the coming reserved PE 2017 all the best, and to do your very best for our country!

     

    Source: Dr Tan Cheng Bock

  • Halimah Resigns From Speaker Way Before Verdict, Now Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Appeal Dismissed

    Halimah Resigns From Speaker Way Before Verdict, Now Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Appeal Dismissed

    Whoever did not expect this outcome must be living under a rock.

    If not, why would Halimah have resigned before the verdict was announced?

    Common sense dictates that with resignation of Halimah from Speaker of Parliament and MP even before the appeal verdict is known, underscores the PAP’s advance preparation.

    At least show some respect by not resigning from the speaker position until the appeal result was out.

    It clearly shows their arrogance with regards to the upcoming reserved elections.

    So happens that they wanted a Malay president, so she proclaims herself Malay. Highly likely if an Indian president was required, she will declare herself Indian.

    Where is the justice? Is there no democracy?

    To Dr Tan Cheng Bock, thank you for trying. You are already a hero in the hearts of fellow Singaporeans.

    We respect what you did, and what you did was right. #salute

     

    Rilek1Corner

  • City Harvest Appeal: All Successful In Getting Reduced Sentence Including Kong Hee

    City Harvest Appeal: All Successful In Getting Reduced Sentence Including Kong Hee

    City Harvest Church founder and senior pastor Kong Hee has had his prison sentence reduced to three years and six months from eight years, while the other five leaders also had their sentences reduced.

    The six were in court on Friday (Apr 7) to hear the outcome of their appeal against both their conviction and sentences after being found guilty in October 2015 of misappropriating about S$50 million of church funds.

    Former fund manager Chew Eng Han had his six-year sentence lowered to three years and fourth months, while deputy pastor Tan Ye Peng had his original five-and-a-half-year sentence cut to three years and two months.

    Former finance manager Serina Wee Gek Yin’s original five-year sentence was halved to two years and six months, and former finance committee member John Lam Leng Hung’s three-year sentence was similarly halved to one year and six months.

    Former finance manager Sharon Tan Shao Yuen had her 21-month jail sentence lowered to seven months.

    Friday’s hearing was the culmination of a five-day appeal heard in September last year by a three-judge panel, including Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justices Woo Bih Li and Chan Seng Onn.

    After the revised sentences were announced, Kong, Lam, Chew, Tan and Wee all asked for their sentences to commence after two weeks, and the court agreed.

    Sharon Tan had asked to defer the start of her sentence by two months, as her family is relocating overseas in June and she wants to help her children adjust to the move. The court agreed to this, too.

    UNPRECEDENTED CASE

    The City Harvest case is unprecedented. The S$50 million taken from the mega-church’s coffers is the largest amount of charity funds ever misappropriated in Singapore.

    The money was used to bankroll the secular music career of the pastor’s wife Sun Ho, without the knowledge of the congregation which is made up of tens of thousands of worshippers who had donated the millions of dollars to the church.

    The case is unprecedented also because the millions were “replaced” through a series of sham investments and shady transactions, and the church ultimately suffered no financial loss.

    “If this is the largest amount going out the door, it is also unprecedented in that it is the largest amount coming back,” Kong’s lawyer Jason Chan had said.

    Still, the actions of Kong and the five co-accused were criminal – they effectively took City Harvest Church’s funds into their own hands to use as they pleased, despite them being plainly not authorised to do so, a judge had said.

    Although the congregation largely supported Sun Ho’s secular music career – through the church’s Crossover Project which aimed to use her music to evangelise – they had no idea that they were footing the bill.

    A total of S$24 million of church funds diverted into sham investments was used to bankroll Ms Ho’s budding career and extravagant lifestyle. Another S$26 million of church funds was used to cover up the first amount to fool auditors and to conceal the fact that money from the church’s building fund – a restricted fund set aside for building-related expenses – had been used for an unauthorised purpose.

     

    Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Public Prosecutor Will Not Appeal 4-Year Jail Sentence For Joshua Robinson: AGC

    Public Prosecutor Will Not Appeal 4-Year Jail Sentence For Joshua Robinson: AGC

    Following a “careful” review, the Public Prosecutor has decided not to appeal against the four-year jail term imposed on convicted sexual predator Joshua Robinson last week, noting that the punishment he got was broadly in line with relevant past cases’.

    In a statement on Wednesday (March 8), the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) added that while some have called for caning to be imposed on Robinson, the offences he was charged with did not allow the court to do so.

    The AGC also said: “In discharging our duties, we do not differentiate between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.”

    The American mixed-martial arts instructor was sentenced to four years’ jail last week for a myriad offences, ranging from sexual penetration of two 15-year-olds to showing an obscene film to a six-year-old girl.

    Following his sentencing, the case attracted widespread public attention, with many questioning why Robinson was not punished more severely – including an online petition being started on Sunday calling for a harsher sentence. More than 26,000 people, including the father of the six-year-old girl affected, have signed the petition, as of Wednesday afternoon.

    In 2015, Robinson contacted a 15-year-old girl through social media repeatedly, and exchanged numbers with her. He instructed the girl to wear her school uniform during their first meeting, where they went to his apartment along Upper Circular Road. There, he filmed them engaging in sexual acts.

    After the girl made a police report, the police found 5,902 obscene films in Robinson’s apartment, of which 321 featured child pornography – the largest stash found on an individual. The children in these videos were between the ages of two and 16.

    In its statement, the AGC said that by getting Robinson, 39, to plead guilty instead of claim trial, his three young victims were spared the ordeal of having to testify in court.

    It had asked for four to five years’ jail to be imposed, after taking into account, among other things, “the fact that by securing a guilty plea, the three young victims would be spared the trauma of having to testify and be cross-examined in a trial”.

    The AGC also addressed public comments that Robinson should have been charged with rape, statutory rape or outrage of modesty, and be subject to caning. It explained that statutory rape only applies to victims who have not turned 14, which was not the case in Robinson’s offences. And because both girls had consented to these sexual acts, an offence of rape could not be pressed against Robinson.

    The most serious offence that Robinson had committed was sexual penetration of a minor under 16 years old, and that did not provide for caning, the AGC added.

    AGC said that it would be discussing with the Ministry of Law whether the relevant legislation should be reviewed to enhance sentencing for some of the offences.

     

    Source: Today

  • M Ravi Barred From Applying For Certificate To Practice For 2 Years

    M Ravi Barred From Applying For Certificate To Practice For 2 Years

    The Court of Three Judges has decided that lawyer M Ravi who was ordered to stop practising in Feb 2015 should be prohibited from applying for a practicing certificate for a period of 2 years. In its judgment released today (27 Oct), the Court said that this was necessary to safeguard the interests of the public and to uphold public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

    Mr Ravi’s case was brought before the Court of Three Judges after he pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct before a disciplinary tribunal last year. The tribunal, in its report released in December 2015 said that a prima facie case had been established against Mr Ravi since he had “pleaded guilty to the four charges and his mental condition as per the evidence of Dr (Tommy) Tan (a psychiatrist) does not exculpate him for his various acts of misconduct but are mitigating factors only”.

    Mr Ravi had earlier pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct, which include creating a ruckus at the Law Society premises on 10 Feb 2015 and another charge of making inappropriate statements against the Law Society president and his family members in a Facebook post. He was also found guilty of  making false allegations against two lawyers in Feb 2015.

    The tribunal referred Mr Ravi’s case to the Court of Three Judges as it had no power to penalise a non-practising lawyer.

    On 6 Sep, Mr Ravi’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam sought an overall fine of $10,000 ($2,500 per offence) and pleaded for the Court to take his client’s mental illness into account.

    The Law Society’s lawyer, Mr Sean La’Brooy, did not object to a fine. He however, in arguing that Mr Ravi’s condition should not “exonerate” him, sought a higher quantum of at least $5,000 for one of the offences.

    The three judges that heard the case — CJ Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Tay Yong Kwang – described Mr Ravi’s conduct as “reprehensible” and “disturbing”.

    CJ Menon had then asked: “(Are we) not going to hold a solicitor to the standards expected of him? … The whole thing may have been avoided if (Mr Ravi) had taken the doctor’s advice … Should we say because he has a medical condition, we punish him differently?”

    The Court had other sentencing options besides prohibiting Mr Ravi from practicing. Among these options are to censure him, to order him to pay a penalty of not more than $20,000, or to strike his name off the roll of lawyers.

    In delivering the verdict today, CJ Menon said that the Court was presented with a situation where Mr Ravi has a mental condition which has in the past caused him to act in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer. He said that there is a possibility that this may happen again in the future.

    “In this circumstances, we consider that anything short of prohibiting the respondent for a substantial period of time from applying for a practicing certificate would be inadequate,” the verdict read.

    Commenting on the verdict Mr Ravi said the following in his Facebook:

    “The Court of Appeal handed out a judgement today prohibiting me from practising law for a period of two years. I have already been out of practice for more than 18 months. My doctor had certified me fit to practice since December last year.The Law Society had approved my application for Practising Certificate in August 2016. However the Attorney General objected to my Practising Certificate. During the hearing before the Court of Appeal the Law Society had agreed that a fine is an appropriate penalty in line with the recommendation made by the Disciplinary Tribunal below.

    I accept that I did not behave appropriately when I was unwell. However, the Court of Appeal’s Judgment is acutely disproportionate in view of the Disciplinary Tribunals recommendation of a fine. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment means I am put (out) of Practice of Law for close to 4 years.

    However in as much I am devastated, this will not deter me from continuing my work in the field of international human rights and constitutional law and contribute to society where I can. To this extent, I will continue my work by assisting the firm of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP in my current role as a Head of Knowledge Management and Strategic Alliance Division.”

     

    Source: http://theindependent.sg