Law Misconceptions in SG

[Benarsenal]

I'm not a lawyer, so any actual lawyers here can feel free to weigh in. But anyway, of late I find myself reading up on law cases in Singapore. Apparently a lot of our court case judgements are available online to read. I find them quite interesting because sometimes the story plotline can be better than any movie or drama. I also find it quite educational to learn about criminal process, legal process and law stuff as well. I also watch shows like True Files and Crimewatch but mostly to complement what I have read about the cases I read.

I've learnt quite a few things from reading about all these stuff, and I guess it might be helpful (or not) to talk about some common misconceptions about the law that people have and perhaps clear them up. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and this is just based on what I've read, so if there's any inaccuracy please feel free to jump in.

I'll start with this one.

Losing an appeal will see your sentence increased

This is untrue. Losing your appeal does not actually affect your original sentence in any way.

What actually happens is that once the original sentence is passed, the accused (by now the convicted) has a right to appeal to Court of Appeal, either to reduce the sentence, amend the charge to a lesser charge, or reverse the conviction (i.e. acquittal). At the same time, the Prosecutor also has the opportunity to appeal as well, to ask for a larger punishment if they deem the original sentence insufficient. Sometimes (but not always) this happens simultaneously.

If both sides appeal at the same time then the Court of Appeal will hear both together just for convenience and to expedite the proceedings. But each appeal is judged on its own merits, and each side will have to argue their case accordingly. If the Prosecution wins their appeal it therefore means the accused would have lost his. But the Prosecution does not always enter appeal and so it's not a given that a lost appeal from the accused would result in a greater sentence.

 

I'll add on other stuff later on if anybody is interested but let's begin with this for now.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Benarsenal

[Jman888]

just the other day I learn from a tv program, law is for (benefit) people who know and understand law.

[1fast1]

Actually I didn't have a misconception about this, but feel the very fact that the prosecution has the right to appeal an acquittal (by a respected and honourable Judge not a mere jury of one's peers, no less!) is, frankly, bulls**t. This is neither the case in the US nor the UK (and the latter is especially significant as we are a Commonwealth country and a lot of our jurisprudence is based on UK law).

In my opinion, the courts should always err in favour of a finding of innocence and only the private defendant in a criminal case should have the right of appeal.

Civil cases are another matter entirely. 

[Benarsenal]

26 minutes ago, Jman888 said:

just the other day I learn from a tv program, law is for (benefit) people who know and understand law.

It's good to know your rights under the law. Just needs a bit of reading.

[Benarsenal]

34 minutes ago, Turboflat4 said:

Actually I didn't have a misconception about this, but feel the very fact that the prosecution has the right to appeal an acquittal (by a respected and honourable Judge not a mere jury of one's peers, no less!) is, frankly, bulls**t. This is neither the case in the US nor the UK (and the latter is especially significant as we are a Commonwealth country and a lot of our jurisprudence is based on UK law).

In my opinion, the courts should always err in favour of a finding of innocence and only the private defendant in a criminal case should have the right of appeal.

Civil cases are another matter entirely. 

I think our law has evolved with our country over the years. Our legal and criminal system is quite significantly different from US and UK (they have jury trials for instance). It's not always agreeable to people but it is as such. In a lot of appeal cases the appeal judge often overrides the initial sentencing judge, one way or another, and not always in favour of the prosecution.

Based on what I read so far most of the cases are judged based on available evidence and relevant witness testimonies. If you have a strong enough case in your favour (which granted may not be always easy to establish) your chances of winning are good. Mistrials or miscarriage of justice in criminal (not civil) cases are rare or virtually non-existent here.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Benarsenal

[macrosszero]

I start with the most basic misconception - not all lawyers are the same. In fact most of them are different. Contract, intellectual property, criminal, family, to name the few major specializations. 

[Benarsenal]

1 minute ago, Macrosszero said:

I start with the most basic misconception - not all lawyers are the same. In fact most of them are different. Contract, intellectual property, criminal, family, to name the few major specializations. 

Yes of course. Just like doctors got many specialisations, lawyers do too.

[Benarsenal]

1 hour ago, Turboflat4 said:

Actually I didn't have a misconception about this, but feel the very fact that the prosecution has the right to appeal an acquittal (by a respected and honourable Judge not a mere jury of one's peers, no less!) is, frankly, bulls**t. This is neither the case in the US nor the UK (and the latter is especially significant as we are a Commonwealth country and a lot of our jurisprudence is based on UK law).

In my opinion, the courts should always err in favour of a finding of innocence and only the private defendant in a criminal case should have the right of appeal.

Civil cases are another matter entirely. 

EDIT: Ignore the earlier reply. I think this is a better reply.

I think our law has evolved with our country over the years, and broadly speaking it is designed to protect greater society as a whole, sometimes at the expense of the individual. So for particularly serious crimes especially there is a bit more weightage towards trying to decide what is right for the community at large, but at the end of the day everything is judged based on available facts and evidence produced in court during trial. It's not always agreeable to people or perfect. but it is as such.

Our legal and criminal system is quite significantly different from US and UK (they have jury trials for instance). There are many prosecution appeals here where the court of appeal have dismissed the appeal as well, if it is shown that the prosecution have not sufficiently proven their case.

Based on what I read so far most of the cases are judged based on available evidence and relevant witness testimonies. If you have a strong enough case in your favour (which granted may not be always easy to establish) your chances of winning are good. Mistrials or miscarriage of justice in criminal (not civil) cases are rare or virtually non-existent here.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Benarsenal

[DylanChen]

dont read so much.

 

woman chapter is the most powerful

 

[1fast1]

1 hour ago, Benarsenal said:

EDIT: Ignore the earlier reply. I think this is a better reply.

I think our law has evolved with our country over the years, and broadly speaking it is designed to protect greater society as a whole, sometimes at the expense of the individual. So for particularly serious crimes especially there is a bit more weightage towards trying to decide what is right for the community at large, but at the end of the day everything is judged based on available facts and evidence produced in court during trial. It's not always agreeable to people or perfect. but it is as such.

Our legal and criminal system is quite significantly different from US and UK (they have jury trials for instance). There are many prosecution appeals here where the court of appeal have dismissed the appeal as well, if it is shown that the prosecution have not sufficiently proven their case.

Based on what I read so far most of the cases are judged based on available evidence and relevant witness testimonies. If you have a strong enough case in your favour (which granted may not be always easy to establish) your chances of winning are good. Mistrials or miscarriage of justice in criminal (not civil) cases are rare or virtually non-existent here.

I understand your perspective, and I respect it. However, let me elucidate why I disagree.

The system here already heavily favours the establishment - it just seems lopsided and highly inequitable to let the prosecution, with so many resources at its disposal, have a "second crack" at "getting their man". Basically, an acquittal is supposed to be a hugely relieving event, but in Singapore, it is almost never so, as one will always have the spectre of a prosecution appeal hanging over one. A legal finding of innocence should not be tentative. Also, can you even begin to imagine the ghastliness when it comes to a capital case? You've been told you're going to live one day, only to find that that can well be reversed tomorrow.

Also, most people don't have a bottomless pit of financial resources and mounting a legal defence is expensive. Once one has won a case, to be dragged back into court and forced to defend against yet another appeal by the prosecution, seems almost an inhuman (not to mention inhumane) burden to bear.

Finally, it seems that we are getting more and more populist by the day. A lot of influence is wielded by public opinion, either directly, or with the support (I am loath to use a word like coercion) of certain elected representatives of the people. There have been cases where an acquital has been secured after the requisite and harrowing legal rigmarole, but then social media starts ringing out its condemnation of the outcome. Then so-and-so makes all kinds of statements urging the prosecution to appeal. Let's not kid ourselves that things still remain perfectly unbiased during this whole process. With such a de facto system in place, it is especially dangerous to let the prosecution have another crack at a defendant already declared innocent once - we do not want the court of public opinion to have any legal weight whatsover.

For the above reasons, I am strongly in disfavour of the current system. We're not even talking about double jeopardy here (which other jurisdictions explicitly protect one against), just the simple injustice (in my view) of putting someone who has been declared innocent through the emotional, legal and financial wringer one more time via a prosecutorial appeal.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Turboflat4

[Fitvip]

7 hours ago, Benarsenal said:

I think our law has evolved with our country over the years. Our legal and criminal system is quite significantly different from US and UK (they have jury trials for instance). It's not always agreeable to people but it is as such. In a lot of appeal cases the appeal judge often overrides the initial sentencing judge, one way or another, and not always in favour of the prosecution.

Based on what I read so far most of the cases are judged based on available evidence and relevant witness testimonies. If you have a strong enough case in your favour (which granted may not be always easy to establish) your chances of winning are good. Mistrials or miscarriage of justice in criminal (not civil) cases are rare or virtually non-existent here.

Try to read up those cases presided by the late CJ Yong Pung How. In many of his appeal casesm the sentences were increased. 

As for mistrials or miscarriage of justice, there were at least two recent cases argued by M Ravi.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Fitvip

[Vratenza]

6 hours ago, Turboflat4 said:

I understand your perspective, and I respect it. However, let me elucidate why I disagree.

The system here already heavily favours the establishment - it just seems lopsided and highly inequitable to let the prosecution, with so many resources at its disposal, have a "second crack" at "getting their man". Basically, an acquittal is supposed to be a hugely relieving event, but in Singapore, it is almost never so, as one will always have the spectre of a prosecution appeal hanging over one. A legal finding of innocence should not be tentative. Also, can you even begin to imagine the ghastliness when it comes to a capital case? You've been told you're going to live one day, only to find that that can well be reversed tomorrow.

Also, most people don't have a bottomless pit of financial resources and mounting a legal defence is expensive. Once one has won a case, to be dragged back into court and forced to defend against yet another appeal by the prosecution, seems almost an inhuman (not to mention inhumane) burden to bear.

Finally, it seems that we are getting more and more populist by the day. A lot of influence is wielded by public opinion, either directly, or with the support (I am loath to use a word like coercion) of certain elected representatives of the people. There have been cases where an acquital has been secured after the requisite and harrowing legal rigmarole, but then social media starts ringing out its condemnation of the outcome. Then so-and-so makes all kinds of statements urging the prosecution to appeal. Let's not kid ourselves that things still remain perfectly unbiased during this whole process. With such a de facto system in place, it is especially dangerous to let the prosecution have another crack at a defendant already declared innocent once - we do not want the court of public opinion to have any legal weight whatsover.

For the above reasons, I am strongly in disfavour of the current system. We're not even talking about double jeopardy here (which other jurisdictions explicitly protect one against), just the simple injustice (in my view) of putting someone who has been declared innocent through the emotional, legal and financial wringer one more time via a prosecutorial appeal.

I do agree largely with the direction of you argument but it has to be premised by a rigorous process within the procecution that someone (a role) with a practical experience of the court proceedings (eg. Former judge) to screen through and advice on each criminal cases to make sure they are water tight before they are put in front of the court. 

[mersaylee]

I only know this

to break the law, know the law first...or know the law before you break it 😁

[Jman888]

strictly base on all the drama I watched

no law/court is 100% impartial, some may have 99%, some 80%, some 50% or even 0%.

some are political driven, some money, some underground, some populist or public opinion. 

small crime just go by the book, even that some still complain rigid and not flexible. But major and sensitive case dun expect the law/court to be 100% cos there is always a big picture. 

[jcmm]

The only I know about law is, it is expensive.

[inlinesix]

If “invited” to give statements, lawyer presence is not allowed.

During this process, one cannot be seem non-cooperative.

 

[Watwheels]

It is a good thing our judicial system has remove the jury. Which I find it weird that the lawyer has to convince the panel of juries. It makes you question what is the judge there for? 

I have noticed the judges here in sg will look at cases precedent to the one on trial and make references from them. The sentencing is more or less similar when it comes to the penalty. It is good in a way you know what to expect. You might say it is predictable but at least it is better than those US courts. For them anything can happen. Kind "unstable" and unpredictable judicial system because of the verdict from the jury.

[mersaylee]

28 minutes ago, jcmm said:

The only I know about law is, it is expensive.

Law abiding isn't, but breaking is 😁