THE Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) supports the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran versus Attorney-General ('Apex court clears air on A-G's power'; Jan 11), both on principle and on authority.
ACLS believes that given the nature and width of the prosecutorial discretion vested in the Attorney-General by Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the view that the Attorney-General should explain how he exercises his discretion is misplaced.
There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. That element of trust is institutionalised in the Constitution of Singapore. Without such faith and trust, the legal system in our country will not work effectively and efficiently.
While ACLS would defend and protect the rights of all accused persons as it should, it also recognises that the protection of the innocent should be of paramount importance in the criminal justice system.
Our criminal justice system has numerous forms of checks and balances to ensure that no one person has unfettered discretion. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion involves numerous layers of internal review. There would be no end to matters if every single decision is questioned excessively. However, it is clear that meritorious cases will be reviewed by the court should the need arise.
The fact remains that it is Parliament which needs to legislate such change if the people demand change. In the meantime, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) must continue to carry out its duties pursuant to the Constitution. ACLS trusts in this.
Subhas Anandan
President
Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore
-----------------
THE president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS), Mr Subhas Anandan, asserts that 'given the nature and width of the prosecutorial discretion vested in the Attorney-General by Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the view that the Attorney-General should explain how he exercises his discretion is misplaced' ('Lawyers' association explains stand on AGC's discretion'; Monday).
The appeal involving Ramalingam Ravinthran versus Attorney-General, of which I am counsel for Ramalingam, concerns a man who is about to be sent to the gallows and all he asks is that he understands how it is possible that a co-accused who did the same thing is allowed to stay alive.
Why did the prosecutor elect to charge Ramalingam with a capital charge while his co-accused is treated more leniently? Is there not a principle of like for like in the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
Why is it misplaced to seek an explanation of this? Actually, the Court of Appeal does not appear to share Mr Anandan's view that the Attorney-General does not need to explain how he exercises his discretion. The court expressly stated that 'once the offender shows, on the evidence before the court, that there is a prima facie breach of a fundamental liberty (that is, that the prosecution has a case to answer), the prosecution will indeed be required to justify its prosecutorial discretion to the court'.
The English Supreme Court has mandated that in cases which involve the right to life of an accused, the director of public prosecutions is expected, in the absence of compelling grounds to the contrary, to give reasons in exercising his discretion. The mandatory nature of the death sentence in Singapore appears to warrant an even greater degree of transparency. The ACLS' 'misplaced' comment must not be taken to suggest it is wrong to apply to the court in appropriate cases to require the Attorney-General to explain his stance.
Only then can we give real meaning to the court's ruling that 'the Attorney-General may not exercise his prosecutorial power under Article 35(8) of the Constitution in breach of Article 12(1)' (Para. 26), in which case, 'the prosecution will indeed be required to justify its prosecutorial discretion to the court' (Para. 28).
M. Ravi
Human rights lawyer
----------------
Join publichouse.sg's Facebook page here.
