"Yes, the answer is yes."
There is a very interesting article in the news today about this man who was caught 16 years ago for allegedly trafficking in 1kg of cannabis because he gave a lift to his colleague who was caught with the drugs. He was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal because his accomplice went into hiding and could not be found. 16 years later, the other guy was caught and implicated him. So he was sentenced to nine years' jail, decided to appeal, and was exonerated at a re-trial.
Sounds like a classic feel-good-justice-prevails story? Well, consider this: trafficking in more than 500g of cannabis carries a mandatory death penalty upon conviction. The only reason why this story had a happy ending is because the prosecution, for some reason, lowered the amount of drugs in the charge below 500g. This led the colleague to plead guilty and to implicate him in the hope of reducing the colleague's own sentence. The man himself probably took a look at how heavily SG's anti-drug laws were weighted against the accused, and decided to plead guilty in order to reduce the charge.
What the report doesn't make apparent is the fact that if the prosecution did not reduce the charge, it would be a capital offence of trafficking in more than 500g of cannabis, and looking at SG's drug laws, it's really a good idea in the interests of self-preservation to plead guilty to trafficking 500g than to contest a charge of trafficking in 1kg. Isn't a system which encourages an accused to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit in order to escape the gallows a cause for concern?
AND YET when the colleague listened to his conscience and vindicated the man, the DPP at the trial still had the cheek to ask the judge to reject the colleague's testimony in favour of the CNB statements which implicated the man!
Had the prosecution not decided to reduce the charge, the colleague would have faced a capital charge, to which he probably would have implicated the man in order to save his neck-which would lead to the man facing a capital charge. And he would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew absolutely nothing about the drugs in his colleague's bag (how to prove, they didn't say). If not, since the drugs were in the bag, they would assume that the colleague knew they were there, and assume that since the colleague was on a motorcycle ridden by the man, that they had common purpose, and assume that the man was also trafficking the more than 500g of cannabis.
And if the CJ was not Chan Sek Keong, I'm sure you'd know how the story would end. Probably on a Friday morning at 6 a.m. in the eastern part of Singapore. For a crime he did not commit.
1kg, BTW, was also the same amount of cannabis Shanmugam Murugesu was caught with and hanged for in 2004.
April 23, 2008
Freed twice for a 16-year-old crime
Sentenced to jail and caning for drug charges, he is cleared after witness recants
By Khushwant Singh
THE last 16 years have been something of a yo-yo for Mr Yunani Abdul Hamid. Now 33, he has been set free by the courts twice for the same crime.
But his acquittal yesterday made him a free man for real. Back in 1992, he was told by the courts that he was free to go, but that he would be nabbed if fresh evidence against him surfaced.
He lived with that hanging over his head until last November, when he was convicted and sentenced to nine years in jail and ordered to be caned six times for drug trafficking.
His case, spanning an unprecedented 16 years, is a story of flip-flopping court testimonies on the part of Abdul Aziz Idros, a former co-worker who was caught carrying a kilogram of cannabis while in Mr Yunani's company.
In 1992, Mr Yunani was giving a lift on his motorcycle to Abdul Aziz at the end of a day's work in the port's container area.
A guard who stopped them at the port gate found the drugs in a backpack Abdul Aziz carried, but the pair sped off on Mr Yunani's bike.
While Abdul Aziz went into hiding, Mr Yunani turned himself in and claimed that the drugs were not his. With Abdul Aziz missing and no evidence found, Mr Yunani was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
When Abdul Aziz, 40, was eventually caught last April, he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and earned himself 12 years in jail and eight strokes of the cane.
He implicated Mr Yunani, who pleaded guilty last November, but appealed against the nine years and six strokes he was dealt.
As Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah had 'serious doubts' about Mr Yunani's guilt because of the long lapse in prosecution, the High Court judge quashed Mr Yunani's conviction last month and ordered a re-trial.
During the seven-day trial before District Judge Jasvender Kaur, Abdul Aziz denied his guilt.
Cross-examined by Mr Yunani's lawyer Abraham Vergis, Abdul Aziz claimed that he had pleaded guilty because he lacked the money to fight the case and because the prosecution had reduced the charge from a capital offence to one which carried a maximum jail term of 20 years with 15 strokes of the cane.
He added that his lawyer had told him that he would get off with a lenient sentence if he testified against Mr Yunani.
He did not have to do so, since Mr Yunani had pleaded guilty as his charge had also been reduced.
But when it was time to implicate Mr Yunani at the re-trial, Abdul Aziz did not keep to the script. He testified that neither he nor Mr Yunani had known about the cannabis in the bag and that Mr Yunani was not the sort to deal in drugs.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Lim Tse Haw then asked the judge to impeach Abdul Aziz's testimony, allowing the prosecution to ask the court to reject his court testimony in favour of his statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau, which implicated Mr Yunani.
District Judge Kaur criticised prosecutors for giving too much emphasis to police statements. She also criticised CNB investigation officer John Cheong for not having independently verified what Mr Yunani had said in his statement and for not determining the ownership of the bag containing the drugs.
The judge also had words for Abdul Aziz, for inconsistencies in his police statements and the turnabout on the witness stand.
Upon acquittal, Mr Yunani, a father of two boys, aged six and 10, clasped his hands together.
He told The Straits Times in an interview at his sister's Bukit Batok flat last night: 'After a year behind bars, I desperately want to see my two sons and taste my mother's cooking.'
He said the family was close, so the worst thing about being in jail was being separated from them and for something he did not do at that.
'As my lawyer said, I was at the wrong place at the wrong time,' he said.
He said he had pleaded guilty because the prosecution would not have reduced the charge if he had not. And if he had fought the case and lost, he would have been jailed 20 years or more.
His mother, Madam Jamilah Sidek, 57, a housewife, said that she wanted to thank her neighbours and friends for praying for Mr Yunani.
She said: 'My boy is coming home.'
§ Technorati tags:
news bites;
observations
Sounds like a classic feel-good-justice-prevails story? Well, consider this: trafficking in more than 500g of cannabis carries a mandatory death penalty upon conviction. The only reason why this story had a happy ending is because the prosecution, for some reason, lowered the amount of drugs in the charge below 500g. This led the colleague to plead guilty and to implicate him in the hope of reducing the colleague's own sentence. The man himself probably took a look at how heavily SG's anti-drug laws were weighted against the accused, and decided to plead guilty in order to reduce the charge.
What the report doesn't make apparent is the fact that if the prosecution did not reduce the charge, it would be a capital offence of trafficking in more than 500g of cannabis, and looking at SG's drug laws, it's really a good idea in the interests of self-preservation to plead guilty to trafficking 500g than to contest a charge of trafficking in 1kg. Isn't a system which encourages an accused to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit in order to escape the gallows a cause for concern?
AND YET when the colleague listened to his conscience and vindicated the man, the DPP at the trial still had the cheek to ask the judge to reject the colleague's testimony in favour of the CNB statements which implicated the man!
Had the prosecution not decided to reduce the charge, the colleague would have faced a capital charge, to which he probably would have implicated the man in order to save his neck-which would lead to the man facing a capital charge. And he would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew absolutely nothing about the drugs in his colleague's bag (how to prove, they didn't say). If not, since the drugs were in the bag, they would assume that the colleague knew they were there, and assume that since the colleague was on a motorcycle ridden by the man, that they had common purpose, and assume that the man was also trafficking the more than 500g of cannabis.
And if the CJ was not Chan Sek Keong, I'm sure you'd know how the story would end. Probably on a Friday morning at 6 a.m. in the eastern part of Singapore. For a crime he did not commit.
1kg, BTW, was also the same amount of cannabis Shanmugam Murugesu was caught with and hanged for in 2004.
April 23, 2008
Freed twice for a 16-year-old crime
Sentenced to jail and caning for drug charges, he is cleared after witness recants
By Khushwant Singh
THE last 16 years have been something of a yo-yo for Mr Yunani Abdul Hamid. Now 33, he has been set free by the courts twice for the same crime.
But his acquittal yesterday made him a free man for real. Back in 1992, he was told by the courts that he was free to go, but that he would be nabbed if fresh evidence against him surfaced.
He lived with that hanging over his head until last November, when he was convicted and sentenced to nine years in jail and ordered to be caned six times for drug trafficking.
His case, spanning an unprecedented 16 years, is a story of flip-flopping court testimonies on the part of Abdul Aziz Idros, a former co-worker who was caught carrying a kilogram of cannabis while in Mr Yunani's company.
In 1992, Mr Yunani was giving a lift on his motorcycle to Abdul Aziz at the end of a day's work in the port's container area.
A guard who stopped them at the port gate found the drugs in a backpack Abdul Aziz carried, but the pair sped off on Mr Yunani's bike.
While Abdul Aziz went into hiding, Mr Yunani turned himself in and claimed that the drugs were not his. With Abdul Aziz missing and no evidence found, Mr Yunani was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
When Abdul Aziz, 40, was eventually caught last April, he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and earned himself 12 years in jail and eight strokes of the cane.
He implicated Mr Yunani, who pleaded guilty last November, but appealed against the nine years and six strokes he was dealt.
As Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah had 'serious doubts' about Mr Yunani's guilt because of the long lapse in prosecution, the High Court judge quashed Mr Yunani's conviction last month and ordered a re-trial.
During the seven-day trial before District Judge Jasvender Kaur, Abdul Aziz denied his guilt.
Cross-examined by Mr Yunani's lawyer Abraham Vergis, Abdul Aziz claimed that he had pleaded guilty because he lacked the money to fight the case and because the prosecution had reduced the charge from a capital offence to one which carried a maximum jail term of 20 years with 15 strokes of the cane.
He added that his lawyer had told him that he would get off with a lenient sentence if he testified against Mr Yunani.
He did not have to do so, since Mr Yunani had pleaded guilty as his charge had also been reduced.
But when it was time to implicate Mr Yunani at the re-trial, Abdul Aziz did not keep to the script. He testified that neither he nor Mr Yunani had known about the cannabis in the bag and that Mr Yunani was not the sort to deal in drugs.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Lim Tse Haw then asked the judge to impeach Abdul Aziz's testimony, allowing the prosecution to ask the court to reject his court testimony in favour of his statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau, which implicated Mr Yunani.
District Judge Kaur criticised prosecutors for giving too much emphasis to police statements. She also criticised CNB investigation officer John Cheong for not having independently verified what Mr Yunani had said in his statement and for not determining the ownership of the bag containing the drugs.
The judge also had words for Abdul Aziz, for inconsistencies in his police statements and the turnabout on the witness stand.
Upon acquittal, Mr Yunani, a father of two boys, aged six and 10, clasped his hands together.
He told The Straits Times in an interview at his sister's Bukit Batok flat last night: 'After a year behind bars, I desperately want to see my two sons and taste my mother's cooking.'
He said the family was close, so the worst thing about being in jail was being separated from them and for something he did not do at that.
'As my lawyer said, I was at the wrong place at the wrong time,' he said.
He said he had pleaded guilty because the prosecution would not have reduced the charge if he had not. And if he had fought the case and lost, he would have been jailed 20 years or more.
His mother, Madam Jamilah Sidek, 57, a housewife, said that she wanted to thank her neighbours and friends for praying for Mr Yunani.
She said: 'My boy is coming home.'
§ Technorati tags:
news bites;
observations