Yet our moral repugnance can be simultaneously coupled with a firm commitment to principles of access to justice for the accused involved. It is not an either/or proposition for right-thinking and right-feeling members of Singapore society.
The couple has been convicted by a court of law and no appeal has been filed. Legal representation was afforded by pro bono volunteer lawyers.
It is understandable that in cases such as Miss Ee's, the Internet community will be abuzz with comments (via social chat or chatter) including visceral disgust. However, a bright line needs to be drawn between freedom of speech on the one hand and incendiary, defamatory or hate speech (including against the pro bono lawyers involved) on the other.
This is part and parcel of the lawful boundaries of free speech (even under the cloak of anonymity) in a functioning democracy. The accused's lawyer's role in mitigation is not to call white black or black white. To do so is intellectually disingenuous. It would invariably result in the plea of guilt being revoked.
At the sentencing stage, criminal defence counsel identifies mitigating circumstances of both offence and offender to the sentencing judge. But in essence, the plea in mitigation is a plaintive cry for judicial mercy. Analytically, the court weighs all relevant factors (aggravating and mitigating). The ultimate goal is a fair and proportionate sentence meted out by the judge.
Three distinct stakeholder roles in criminal justice need to be better appreciated. First, the prosecution and its discretion to prefer charges. Due consideration will be given on, among other things, whether the charges brought can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Second, the role of our courts in considering all relevant facts and allowing due process before making a decision in accordance with the law. The courts' sentencing powers are circumscribed by the statutory minimum and maximum punishments prescribed for the penal offences concerned.
Third, the duty of criminal defence lawyers to give a voice to their clients on extenuating circumstances. That voice needs to be articulated professionally, responsibly and fairly. Lawyers are officers of the court.
To hold such criminal defence lawyers in contempt of the court of public opinion blithely ignores the golden principle of access to justice. We should not shoot the messenger because we neither like the message nor the client he represents.
Every accused deserves due process, even during sentencing after they have pleaded guilty. As Eleanor Roosevelt said : "Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both." This is a bedrock of our Singapore criminal justice system. It is a cornerstone of the Law Society's criminal legal aid scheme.
Gregory Vijayendran
President
Law Society of Singapore
ST Forum, 19 Dec 2017
Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) replies to questions raised by the public
Couple who abused her not charged with murder as forensic evidence shows death by 'acute fat embolism'
By Ng Huiwen, The Straits Times, 19 Dec 2017
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) yesterday addressed questions raised by the public in the case of the couple who abused their flatmate to death, and explained why murder charges were not brought against them.
On Dec 1, Tan Hui Zhen, 33, was sentenced to 16 1/2 years' jail, and her husband, Pua Hak Chuan, 38, was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane.
The couple had pleaded guilty to various charges related to the extensive torture of Ms Annie Ee, a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities.
The daily beatings over eight months left Ms Ee with 12 fractured ribs and seven fractured vertebrae, a ruptured stomach and a body crowded with blisters and bruises.
The pair were initially charged with murder, but the counts were amended after police completed investigations.
In a statement, an AGC spokesman explained that the prosecutor's duty is to only prefer a charge which is supported by evidence.
The evidence given by the forensic pathologist was that Ms Ee's death was caused by acute fat embolism.
This was an unusual occurrence that would not have ordinarily resulted from the injuries inflicted by Pua and Tan, said the spokesman.
Ms Ee was beaten so severely that fatty tissue below the skin had separated from the muscle and entered her bloodstream, interfering with blood getting oxygen in the lungs and leading to progressive cardiac and respiratory failure.
"As Pua and Tan did not intend to cause Annie's death, and the injuries they inflicted would not ordinarily cause death, the offences of murder and culpable homicide cannot be proved against them," the spokesman said.
The prosecution thus proceeded with charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt - which the law defines as including death - with a dangerous weapon.
Couple who abused her not charged with murder as forensic evidence shows death by 'acute fat embolism'
By Ng Huiwen, The Straits Times, 19 Dec 2017
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) yesterday addressed questions raised by the public in the case of the couple who abused their flatmate to death, and explained why murder charges were not brought against them.
On Dec 1, Tan Hui Zhen, 33, was sentenced to 16 1/2 years' jail, and her husband, Pua Hak Chuan, 38, was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane.
The couple had pleaded guilty to various charges related to the extensive torture of Ms Annie Ee, a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities.
The daily beatings over eight months left Ms Ee with 12 fractured ribs and seven fractured vertebrae, a ruptured stomach and a body crowded with blisters and bruises.
The pair were initially charged with murder, but the counts were amended after police completed investigations.
In a statement, an AGC spokesman explained that the prosecutor's duty is to only prefer a charge which is supported by evidence.
The evidence given by the forensic pathologist was that Ms Ee's death was caused by acute fat embolism.
This was an unusual occurrence that would not have ordinarily resulted from the injuries inflicted by Pua and Tan, said the spokesman.
Ms Ee was beaten so severely that fatty tissue below the skin had separated from the muscle and entered her bloodstream, interfering with blood getting oxygen in the lungs and leading to progressive cardiac and respiratory failure.
"As Pua and Tan did not intend to cause Annie's death, and the injuries they inflicted would not ordinarily cause death, the offences of murder and culpable homicide cannot be proved against them," the spokesman said.
The prosecution thus proceeded with charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt - which the law defines as including death - with a dangerous weapon.
"These charges reflect the most serious offences committed by the two accused, as supported by the evidence," the spokesman said.
He added that while the AGC can understand why the public was shocked and moved by Ms Ee's suffering and the circumstances of her tragic death, the integrity of the legal system requires that all parties, including the accused, are treated fairly.
This means that cases are prosecuted fairly and decided strictly according to the law and evidence presented.
It is critical that the public refrain from making comments or interfering with ongoing proceedings, or seek to influence their outcome, he added.
The AGC said it decided to release the statement after the period for appealing against the court's decision expired and no appeal has been filed.
It is critical that the public refrain from making comments or interfering with ongoing proceedings, or seek to influence their outcome, he added.
The AGC said it decided to release the statement after the period for appealing against the court's decision expired and no appeal has been filed.
Public should avoid putting pressure on judges in sentencing: Shanmugam on Annie Ee's case
By Raffaella Nathan Charles, The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2017
While the death of a woman who was badly tortured has angered many Singaporeans including himself, the public should avoid putting pressure on judges to impose harsh or lenient sentences, said Minister of Home Affairs K. Shanmugam.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday (Dec 20) morning, Mr Shanmugam said he was "troubled" by the way some people had reacted to the case of Ms Annie Ee, a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities who died after daily beatings by her flatmates.
She suffered 12 fractured ribs and seven fractured vertebrae and a ruptured stomach, among other injuries.
"I can understand the anger that many feel. At the same time, I am troubled by how some people have expressed their views," he wrote.
He noted that an online petition seeking harsher sentences was filed and "aspersions were cast on the defence lawyers’ characters".
Such comments prompted statements from both the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) and Law Society, who took issue with the tenor and substance of the online criticisms, he added.
"As a society, we have to try and avoid putting public pressure on judges to impose harsh/lenient sentences. We have a well-functioning court system. We must have the confidence that our judges will do the right thing," he said.
He added: "The sentence that a defendant gets, in any particular case, must not depend on how the public react during the case."
On Dec 1, Tan Hui Zhen, 33, was sentenced to 16½ years' jail, and her husband Pua Hak Chuan, 38, was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane.
They had pleaded guilty to various charges for the extensive torture of Ms Annie Ee, a 26-year-old waitress who had intellectual disabilities, over eight months.
The daily beatings left Ms Ee with 12 fractured ribs and seven fractured vertebrae, a ruptured stomach and a body crowded with blisters and bruises. They were initially charged with murder.
Evidence given by the forensic pathologist showed that Ms Ee's death was caused by acute fat embolism.
Ms Ee had been beaten so severely that fatty tissue below the skin had separated from the muscle and entered her bloodstream, interfering with blood getting oxygen in the lungs and leading to progressive cardiac and respiratory failure.
A spokesman for the AGC said on Monday that the offences of murder and culpable homicide cannot be proved against the couple as they "did not intend to cause Annie's death, and the injuries they inflicted would not ordinarily cause death".
Mr Shanmugam noted in his Facebook post that the prosecution or defence can appeal if the sentence does not appear right.
He also responded to criticism of the couple's defence lawyer, Mr Josephus Tan from Invictus Law Corporation. "Every defendant has a right to get a lawyer to defend him," he noted.
"A lawyer has the duty to put forward the strongest possible arguments, on behalf of his client, in court. It will be a sad day for Singapore, if lawyers are going to be hounded in public, for standing up in court to argue on behalf of their clients," he said.
Likewise, the Law Society, in a letter published in The Straits Times on Tuesday, noted that every accused deserves due process, even during sentencing after they have pleaded guilty, calling it a "bedrock of our Singapore criminal justice system".
Mr Shanmugam also appealed to the public to remember that "someone known to anyone of us could be charged for any offence at any point in time".
"Rule of Law means that the person is entitled to have his lawyer put forward the strongest possible arguments in his favour. And he is entitled to have a Judge decide his guilt/ innocence and sentence, without the public, or anyone else influencing the outcome," he said.
He concluded: "We ought to be a civilised society, observing the Rule of Law, while expressing our unhappiness and moral outrage when seeing such conduct as in this case."
Death of Annie Ee: Tragic case highlights conditions needed for sound court system
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Straits Times, 21 Dec 2017
Ms Annie Ee, the young woman who was abused to death, drew a postscript for her tragedy as three parties came out to clarify the issues behind the court outcome for the offending couple.
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) explained why it could not press murder charges, the Law Society stressed the critical role of defence counsel in safeguarding the due process of the law, while a "troubled" Law Minister urged the public not to put pressure on judges over their sentencing decisions.
Ms Ee, a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities, died after daily beatings by her flatmates.
The couple, Tan Hui Zhen, 33, and her husband Pua Hak Chuan, 38, who were initially charged with murder, pleaded guilty to various charges for the extensive torture of Ms Ee over eight months.
High Court Justice Hoo Sheau Peng sentenced Tan to 16½ years' jail, while Pua was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane for their "extremely cruel and inhumane" abuse.
In pressing for a deterrent sentence, the prosecution said: "If appropriate punishment is not imposed, or if it is generally perceived as being proportionately inadequate, the wider community will be left with the sour taste of injustice and grievance."
Disquiet did, indeed, follow with more than 35,000 appearing to have joined an online petition seeking harsher punishments. Netizens even flamed the defence lawyers.
By Raffaella Nathan Charles, The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2017
In a Facebook post on Wednesday (Dec 20) morning, Mr Shanmugam said he was "troubled" by the way some people had reacted to the case of Ms Annie Ee, a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities who died after daily beatings by her flatmates.
She suffered 12 fractured ribs and seven fractured vertebrae and a ruptured stomach, among other injuries.
"I can understand the anger that many feel. At the same time, I am troubled by how some people have expressed their views," he wrote.
He noted that an online petition seeking harsher sentences was filed and "aspersions were cast on the defence lawyers’ characters".
Such comments prompted statements from both the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) and Law Society, who took issue with the tenor and substance of the online criticisms, he added.
"As a society, we have to try and avoid putting public pressure on judges to impose harsh/lenient sentences. We have a well-functioning court system. We must have the confidence that our judges will do the right thing," he said.
He added: "The sentence that a defendant gets, in any particular case, must not depend on how the public react during the case."
On Dec 1, Tan Hui Zhen, 33, was sentenced to 16½ years' jail, and her husband Pua Hak Chuan, 38, was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane.
They had pleaded guilty to various charges for the extensive torture of Ms Annie Ee, a 26-year-old waitress who had intellectual disabilities, over eight months.
The daily beatings left Ms Ee with 12 fractured ribs and seven fractured vertebrae, a ruptured stomach and a body crowded with blisters and bruises. They were initially charged with murder.
Evidence given by the forensic pathologist showed that Ms Ee's death was caused by acute fat embolism.
Ms Ee had been beaten so severely that fatty tissue below the skin had separated from the muscle and entered her bloodstream, interfering with blood getting oxygen in the lungs and leading to progressive cardiac and respiratory failure.
A spokesman for the AGC said on Monday that the offences of murder and culpable homicide cannot be proved against the couple as they "did not intend to cause Annie's death, and the injuries they inflicted would not ordinarily cause death".
Mr Shanmugam noted in his Facebook post that the prosecution or defence can appeal if the sentence does not appear right.
He also responded to criticism of the couple's defence lawyer, Mr Josephus Tan from Invictus Law Corporation. "Every defendant has a right to get a lawyer to defend him," he noted.
"A lawyer has the duty to put forward the strongest possible arguments, on behalf of his client, in court. It will be a sad day for Singapore, if lawyers are going to be hounded in public, for standing up in court to argue on behalf of their clients," he said.
Likewise, the Law Society, in a letter published in The Straits Times on Tuesday, noted that every accused deserves due process, even during sentencing after they have pleaded guilty, calling it a "bedrock of our Singapore criminal justice system".
Mr Shanmugam also appealed to the public to remember that "someone known to anyone of us could be charged for any offence at any point in time".
"Rule of Law means that the person is entitled to have his lawyer put forward the strongest possible arguments in his favour. And he is entitled to have a Judge decide his guilt/ innocence and sentence, without the public, or anyone else influencing the outcome," he said.
He concluded: "We ought to be a civilised society, observing the Rule of Law, while expressing our unhappiness and moral outrage when seeing such conduct as in this case."
Death of Annie Ee: Tragic case highlights conditions needed for sound court system
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Straits Times, 21 Dec 2017
Ms Annie Ee, the young woman who was abused to death, drew a postscript for her tragedy as three parties came out to clarify the issues behind the court outcome for the offending couple.
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) explained why it could not press murder charges, the Law Society stressed the critical role of defence counsel in safeguarding the due process of the law, while a "troubled" Law Minister urged the public not to put pressure on judges over their sentencing decisions.
Ms Ee, a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities, died after daily beatings by her flatmates.
The couple, Tan Hui Zhen, 33, and her husband Pua Hak Chuan, 38, who were initially charged with murder, pleaded guilty to various charges for the extensive torture of Ms Ee over eight months.
High Court Justice Hoo Sheau Peng sentenced Tan to 16½ years' jail, while Pua was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane for their "extremely cruel and inhumane" abuse.
In pressing for a deterrent sentence, the prosecution said: "If appropriate punishment is not imposed, or if it is generally perceived as being proportionately inadequate, the wider community will be left with the sour taste of injustice and grievance."
Disquiet did, indeed, follow with more than 35,000 appearing to have joined an online petition seeking harsher punishments. Netizens even flamed the defence lawyers.
Clearly, the public was baying for blood. But - and this is the issue central to the legal aspects of this tragic case - emotion on the ground cannot be allowed to influence the proceedings in court.
People wanted the couple charged with homicide or murder. But the AGC explained that the prosecutor's duty was to only prefer charges supported by evidence. And evidence showed that while Ms Ee was beaten severely, she died of fat embolism - which would not normally result from her injuries. "(So) the offences of homicide and murder cannot be proved against them," said an AGC spokesman.
The Law Society drew attention to the ire directed at the pro bono, volunteer lawyers who represented the couple. Its president Gregory Vijayendran pointed out that it was the duty of criminal defence lawyers to give voice to their clients and to extenuating circumstances. "We should not shoot the messenger because we neither like the message nor the client he represents," he said.
And yet, it is also true that the public keeps making its voice heard, ever louder, on high-profile cases in Singapore.
In an opinion piece for The Straits Times in August, Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han noted that in this highly wired city, "anyone in Singapore has the means to weigh in on a court case, and to have his or her comments widely amplified with the help of social media".
In that sense, it was refreshing to see the AGC go the extra mile to explain the decision to prosecute for grievous hurt.
The AGC said on its website: "We do understand that there may be a desire to understand in some detail our decisions in certain cases. As we have noted before, we may issue statements to explain our position in a specific case, and to address misconceptions that may arise... about the law and the legal process."
But the matter went beyond legal explanations. A line was probably crossed when an online petition tried to put pressure on judges to impose harsher sentences on the couple.
It was perhaps this that prompted Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam to step in and put things into perspective.
He said: "As a society, we have to try and avoid putting public pressure on judges to impose harsh/lenient sentences. We have a well-functioning court system. We must have the confidence that our judges will do the right thing."
Mr Shanmugam also reminded those fanning the flames to remember that, one day, they could find themselves on the other side of the divide. "Someone known to anyone of us could be charged for any offence at any point in time," he said.
The tragic case has brought many issues to the fore. It has invoked righteous anger among people.
But it has also served as a reminder that for the court system to stay sound, prosecutors must be allowed to frame charges as they see fit, defence lawyers must be given the freedom to speak up for their clients and the judge left alone to mete out appropriate sentences.
Why lawyer Josephus Tan defends the ‘bad guys’
Everyone has the right to a proper defence, says lawyer Josephus Tan
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 24 Dec 2017
For defending the couple who fatally abused 26-year-old Annie Ee, lawyer Josephus Tan was not only heckled online, but also questioned by friends and relatives.
Mr Tan, who defended them pro bono, may be upset by the reactions, but said too that these also showed a civic-minded public who cared strongly about the tragedy.
Speaking to The Sunday Times yesterday, he said some members of the public had gone up to him to ask why he had defended Tan Hui Zhen and her husband Pua Hak Chuan.
On Dec 1, Tan was sentenced to 16½ years' jail, while Pua was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane by the High Court after they pleaded guilty for their "extremely cruel and inhumane abuse" of their flatmate, Ms Ee, over eight months.
An autopsy report showed that Ms Ee suffered fractures to seven vertebrae and 12 ribs.
Tan and Pua were initially charged with murder, but Mr Tan's representations as their lawyer helped reduce the main charge to voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Mr Tan said: " Not only people on the streets, but even my family and friends asked me why I took up this case. They asked me because they themselves were hounded by others."
He said he explained to them that as a lawyer, he has to take on all cases regardless of their nature when he is doing pro bono cases.
It was perhaps this that prompted Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam to step in and put things into perspective.
He said: "As a society, we have to try and avoid putting public pressure on judges to impose harsh/lenient sentences. We have a well-functioning court system. We must have the confidence that our judges will do the right thing."
Mr Shanmugam also reminded those fanning the flames to remember that, one day, they could find themselves on the other side of the divide. "Someone known to anyone of us could be charged for any offence at any point in time," he said.
The tragic case has brought many issues to the fore. It has invoked righteous anger among people.
But it has also served as a reminder that for the court system to stay sound, prosecutors must be allowed to frame charges as they see fit, defence lawyers must be given the freedom to speak up for their clients and the judge left alone to mete out appropriate sentences.
Why lawyer Josephus Tan defends the ‘bad guys’
Everyone has the right to a proper defence, says lawyer Josephus Tan
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 24 Dec 2017
For defending the couple who fatally abused 26-year-old Annie Ee, lawyer Josephus Tan was not only heckled online, but also questioned by friends and relatives.
Mr Tan, who defended them pro bono, may be upset by the reactions, but said too that these also showed a civic-minded public who cared strongly about the tragedy.
Speaking to The Sunday Times yesterday, he said some members of the public had gone up to him to ask why he had defended Tan Hui Zhen and her husband Pua Hak Chuan.
On Dec 1, Tan was sentenced to 16½ years' jail, while Pua was given 14 years' jail and 14 strokes of the cane by the High Court after they pleaded guilty for their "extremely cruel and inhumane abuse" of their flatmate, Ms Ee, over eight months.
An autopsy report showed that Ms Ee suffered fractures to seven vertebrae and 12 ribs.
Tan and Pua were initially charged with murder, but Mr Tan's representations as their lawyer helped reduce the main charge to voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Mr Tan said: " Not only people on the streets, but even my family and friends asked me why I took up this case. They asked me because they themselves were hounded by others."
He said he explained to them that as a lawyer, he has to take on all cases regardless of their nature when he is doing pro bono cases.
Mr Tan, 38, of Invictus Law Corporation, was conferred the Pro Bono Ambassador of the Year award by the Law Society in 2013.
He had said in a previous interview that he is seen as an "outlier" among lawyers for his passion for pro bono work and even his appearance - he keeps his hair long .
He said then: "I believe that a powerful discipline like law should never be used to enrich oneself but rather, to empower the society as a whole. Especially the underprivileged among us."
On the furore over his defence of Tan and Pua, Mr Tan cited the saying of one of Singapore's best known criminal lawyers.
He said: "I am mindful of my pupil master, the late Mr Subhas Anandan, who said that however heinous his offence is, I think he deserves a proper defence. 'Why should anybody say that he is guilty when the court has not found him guilty yet?'".
The tragic case of Ms Ee, a waitress who had intellectual disabilities, sparked much public anger against Tan and Pua. There was even an online petition, with more than 35,000 signatures, seeking harsher punishment against them.
Netizens also flamed Mr Tan, who had taken the case pro bono together with Mr Cory Wong.
The public outrage prompted the Attorney-General's Chambers to explain why it could not press murder charges. It noted that the prosecutor's duty was to prefer charges supported by evidence. And in this case, evidence showed that while Ms Ee was beaten severely, she died of fat embolism - which would not normally result from her injuries.
The Law Society also wrote in to The Straits Times Forum pages to stress the role of defence lawyers in safeguarding the due process of the law, while Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam urged the public not to pressure judges over their sentencing decisions.
Mr Tan said he was upset that some people were "blinded by their anger" and he feared that this may discourage other young lawyers from doing pro bono criminal work.
But he was also heartened, as the reactions also reflected how Singaporeans are a caring lot who wanted to voice their outrage against the appalling abuse.
The tragic case of Ms Ee, a waitress who had intellectual disabilities, sparked much public anger against Tan and Pua. There was even an online petition, with more than 35,000 signatures, seeking harsher punishment against them.
Netizens also flamed Mr Tan, who had taken the case pro bono together with Mr Cory Wong.
The public outrage prompted the Attorney-General's Chambers to explain why it could not press murder charges. It noted that the prosecutor's duty was to prefer charges supported by evidence. And in this case, evidence showed that while Ms Ee was beaten severely, she died of fat embolism - which would not normally result from her injuries.
The Law Society also wrote in to The Straits Times Forum pages to stress the role of defence lawyers in safeguarding the due process of the law, while Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam urged the public not to pressure judges over their sentencing decisions.
Mr Tan said he was upset that some people were "blinded by their anger" and he feared that this may discourage other young lawyers from doing pro bono criminal work.
But he was also heartened, as the reactions also reflected how Singaporeans are a caring lot who wanted to voice their outrage against the appalling abuse.
Mr Tan said even the couple themselves felt they should not appeal. He said both stopped him when he was analysing their case for appeal prospects earlier this month. "They told me they wanted to pay their dues in jail, seek closure and move on," he said.
Mr Tan, who was called to the Singapore Bar in 2009, is seen as a criminal lawyer whose star is rising. Next year, he has a few high-profile cases, such as defending Teo Ghim Heng, a property agent charged with murdering his pregnant wife, Madam Choong Pei Shan, in their flat in February, pro bono.
Mr Tan has taken on about 30 homicide cases in nine years but said the case of Ms Ee was one of his hardest as it was "emotionally draining".
While other cases averaged about 18 months, this one took him two years and seven months, the longest time that he has spent on a pro bono case.
When he first met the accused couple, they looked visibly shaken as they had not come to terms with the impact of the murder charge.
He said Pua was quiet but Tan looked a bit emotionally unstable.
"It was very difficult getting through to her because of her condition and at times, we could not see her in prison because she was not ready to be interviewed."
Mr Tan has taken on about 30 homicide cases in nine years but said the case of Ms Ee was one of his hardest as it was "emotionally draining".
While other cases averaged about 18 months, this one took him two years and seven months, the longest time that he has spent on a pro bono case.
When he first met the accused couple, they looked visibly shaken as they had not come to terms with the impact of the murder charge.
He said Pua was quiet but Tan looked a bit emotionally unstable.
"It was very difficult getting through to her because of her condition and at times, we could not see her in prison because she was not ready to be interviewed."
The run-up to the eventual hearings took a long time, given psychiatric examinations, forensic probes of the various items of evidence and the preparation of documents.
Mr Tan said it took at least a year before the murder charges were reduced and he remembered the visible relief on the faces of Tan and Pua when he told them.
Now that they have been sentenced, Mr Tan said they are getting used to life in prison.
"I could see they are adjusting to prison life although Tan has difficulty and will take some time," he said.
"I could see they are adjusting to prison life although Tan has difficulty and will take some time," he said.
Lawyers who defend people accused of heinous crimes undeterred by online hate
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 24 Dec 2017
Lawyers say they are unfazed by the online abuse they get for defending people accused of heinous crime as this comes with the territory.
Mr Mervyn Tan, 59, was subjected to an outpouring of hatred online, with comments bordering on threats, when he defended an expatriate charged with underage sex offences earlier this year.
The expatriate, Joshua Robinson, 39, a mixed martial arts instructor, had pleaded guilty in February to making obscene films, having consensual sex with two 15-year-old girls and showing an obscene clip to a six-year-old girl.
He was sentenced to four years' jail, but many felt the sentence was too lenient. This led to an online petition of over 26,000 signatures, calling for harsher punishment.
Like fellow lawyer Josephus Tan, who drew much flak for defending the couple who fatally abused waitress Annie Ee, Mr Mervyn Tan just carried on with his duties.
Lawyers like Mr Mervyn Tan noted that their duty is to help the court arrive at a just verdict. He said: "As a lawyer , we have to protect the integrity of the system and not recoil.
"At most, I bite my tongue... and carry on with my duties."
Still, Mr Tan added that one precaution he took was not to linger in the courthouse after the hearings to avoid run-ins with any irate bystanders seeking to hurl abuse.
Likewise, lawyer Peter Ong Lip Cheng, 51, said he would not turn away cases involving horrific crimes. He had defended, for example, Kuah Bin Chuan, who bludgeoned his mother to death and whose charge was reduced to culpable homicide from murder.
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 24 Dec 2017
Lawyers say they are unfazed by the online abuse they get for defending people accused of heinous crime as this comes with the territory.
Mr Mervyn Tan, 59, was subjected to an outpouring of hatred online, with comments bordering on threats, when he defended an expatriate charged with underage sex offences earlier this year.
The expatriate, Joshua Robinson, 39, a mixed martial arts instructor, had pleaded guilty in February to making obscene films, having consensual sex with two 15-year-old girls and showing an obscene clip to a six-year-old girl.
He was sentenced to four years' jail, but many felt the sentence was too lenient. This led to an online petition of over 26,000 signatures, calling for harsher punishment.
Like fellow lawyer Josephus Tan, who drew much flak for defending the couple who fatally abused waitress Annie Ee, Mr Mervyn Tan just carried on with his duties.
Lawyers like Mr Mervyn Tan noted that their duty is to help the court arrive at a just verdict. He said: "As a lawyer , we have to protect the integrity of the system and not recoil.
"At most, I bite my tongue... and carry on with my duties."
Still, Mr Tan added that one precaution he took was not to linger in the courthouse after the hearings to avoid run-ins with any irate bystanders seeking to hurl abuse.
Likewise, lawyer Peter Ong Lip Cheng, 51, said he would not turn away cases involving horrific crimes. He had defended, for example, Kuah Bin Chuan, who bludgeoned his mother to death and whose charge was reduced to culpable homicide from murder.
"I normally don't decline to act as everyone deserves to be represented, regardless of how appalling the alleged crime," said Mr Ong, who has secured at least 70 acquittals in 20 years. He recalled the adverse comments he got when he got a pastor's jail sentence reduced to a fine after an appeal in a fuel tank tampering case five years ago.
Mr Ong said: "What keeps me going is my passion and satisfaction in doing criminal work."
Lawyers told The Sunday Times that they do not usually decline to act in pro bono cases. But in cases where the accused seek to hire their services, they may decline when the client's instructions are not reasonable, for instance.
Mr Ong said he declines to act "when a client does not heed my advice, gives conflicting instructions or has unreasonable expectations".
Lawyer Amolat Singh, 61, said it depends in part on the evidence.
Mr Ong said: "What keeps me going is my passion and satisfaction in doing criminal work."
Lawyers told The Sunday Times that they do not usually decline to act in pro bono cases. But in cases where the accused seek to hire their services, they may decline when the client's instructions are not reasonable, for instance.
Mr Ong said he declines to act "when a client does not heed my advice, gives conflicting instructions or has unreasonable expectations".
Lawyer Amolat Singh, 61, said it depends in part on the evidence.
"If the suspect is accused of drug consumption and the evidence backs the charge, it would be difficult to go with the client if he insists the sample from his system was from a cough mixture," he said.
Mr Singh noted that there appeared to be no shortage of lawyers willing to handle pro bono cases under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.
For pro bono cases, lawyers are currently paid $500 for those in which the accused pleads guilty and $1,000 for cases involving a trial, he added.
But some lawyers said they wished the public had a better understanding of the role of a lawyer.
A 27-year-old lawyer said that being slammed online can be "demoralising for a lawyer, especially when it is something to do with the profession".
The lawyer, who has not been subjected to such abuse over cases she has handled, said: "We do our best in defending a client and assisting the court, which does not mean we endorse what the client does. There needs to be better public understanding of the lawyer's role through, perhaps, more forms of communication."
The Law Society's co-chairman of its Criminal Law Practice Committee, Mr Wendell Wong, said yesterday that defence lawyers are duty-bound to defend their clients fearlessly. "We do so within the parameters of the law whilst upholding our duty as officers of the court. Some criminal cases may be unpleasant to others but we take them on because access to justice is a fundamental pillar of our society."
* Parliament: Laws protect vulnerable adults, but community must also blow the whistle on abusers: Desmond Lee
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 10 Jan 2018
The tragic death of Ms Annie Ee, the intellectually disabled waitress who died after prolonged abuse, underscores the importance of the community watching out for its most vulnerable members, said Minister for Social and Family Development Desmond Lee yesterday.
He added that the role of legislation to protect people like Ms Ee, who went out to work and looked after herself, "cannot be further emphasised".
With laws such as the existing Penal Code and the Vulnerable Adults Bill slated to be introduced this year, the authorities can haul abusers to court and also step in to protect vulnerable adults, he told Parliament.
But legal protection alone is not enough, he added.
"None of this would be effectual unless family members, colleagues, neighbours, passers-by, people who interact and suspect something amiss happening - to not just persons with intellectual disability but to persons with disability, to children, to vulnerable adults - step forward, raise the alarm and bring their suspicions to the attention of the authorities," he said.
Mr Lee was replying to Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC).
An elderly neighbour had reportedly noticed bruises around Ms Ee's eyes on two occasions.
The 26-year-old told him she had fallen. The next time, she said she was beaten by a colleague. The neighbour did not report the injuries to the authorities.
Ms Ee's death attracted public attention last November when Tan Hui Zhen, 33, and her husband Pua Hak Chuan, 38, were sentenced to jail for torturing her.
Pua was also given 14 strokes of the cane.
Ms Ee, who was estranged from her family, rented a room from them. They beat her repeatedly over eight months and she died from multiple injuries in their flat.
On family violence, Mr Lee said his ministry's network of Family Service Centres handle an average of 1,400 such cases each year.
The Family Justice Courts receive about 2,800 applications for Personal Protection Orders and issue about 1,200 orders, he told Ms Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon GRC).
He also said his ministry's hotline receives about 60 calls a year for help with family violence matters, with one-third of the calls made by non-family members.
For pro bono cases, lawyers are currently paid $500 for those in which the accused pleads guilty and $1,000 for cases involving a trial, he added.
But some lawyers said they wished the public had a better understanding of the role of a lawyer.
A 27-year-old lawyer said that being slammed online can be "demoralising for a lawyer, especially when it is something to do with the profession".
The lawyer, who has not been subjected to such abuse over cases she has handled, said: "We do our best in defending a client and assisting the court, which does not mean we endorse what the client does. There needs to be better public understanding of the lawyer's role through, perhaps, more forms of communication."
The Law Society's co-chairman of its Criminal Law Practice Committee, Mr Wendell Wong, said yesterday that defence lawyers are duty-bound to defend their clients fearlessly. "We do so within the parameters of the law whilst upholding our duty as officers of the court. Some criminal cases may be unpleasant to others but we take them on because access to justice is a fundamental pillar of our society."
* Parliament: Laws protect vulnerable adults, but community must also blow the whistle on abusers: Desmond Lee
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 10 Jan 2018
The tragic death of Ms Annie Ee, the intellectually disabled waitress who died after prolonged abuse, underscores the importance of the community watching out for its most vulnerable members, said Minister for Social and Family Development Desmond Lee yesterday.
He added that the role of legislation to protect people like Ms Ee, who went out to work and looked after herself, "cannot be further emphasised".
With laws such as the existing Penal Code and the Vulnerable Adults Bill slated to be introduced this year, the authorities can haul abusers to court and also step in to protect vulnerable adults, he told Parliament.
But legal protection alone is not enough, he added.
"None of this would be effectual unless family members, colleagues, neighbours, passers-by, people who interact and suspect something amiss happening - to not just persons with intellectual disability but to persons with disability, to children, to vulnerable adults - step forward, raise the alarm and bring their suspicions to the attention of the authorities," he said.
Mr Lee was replying to Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC).
An elderly neighbour had reportedly noticed bruises around Ms Ee's eyes on two occasions.
The 26-year-old told him she had fallen. The next time, she said she was beaten by a colleague. The neighbour did not report the injuries to the authorities.
Ms Ee's death attracted public attention last November when Tan Hui Zhen, 33, and her husband Pua Hak Chuan, 38, were sentenced to jail for torturing her.
Pua was also given 14 strokes of the cane.
Ms Ee, who was estranged from her family, rented a room from them. They beat her repeatedly over eight months and she died from multiple injuries in their flat.
On family violence, Mr Lee said his ministry's network of Family Service Centres handle an average of 1,400 such cases each year.
The Family Justice Courts receive about 2,800 applications for Personal Protection Orders and issue about 1,200 orders, he told Ms Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon GRC).
He also said his ministry's hotline receives about 60 calls a year for help with family violence matters, with one-third of the calls made by non-family members.
No comments:
Post a Comment