This Week In Court

– Week of 7th September –

This week in court, we saw that while the Public Defender’s Office was purportedly established in recent times to “enhance access to justice for vulnerable persons”, people are facing serious issues securing legal representation because of a lack of transparency and onerous bureaucratic processes.

We also saw how when one’s application for a lawyer through the PDO can be rejected without any reason provided, people who cannot afford a lawyer may feel they have no other choice than pleading guilty. Judges’ directions, too, often seem to move them towards making a decision on how they want to plead. Judges have said in multiple instances while we’ve been in court that their role isn’t to address the challenges the accused person is facing in securing legal counsel.

People also often end up being punished for trusting others, whether that is a romantic partner whose immigration status you didn’t verify, or a friend who asked you to help deliver a parcel while hiding the true nature of its contents.

This highlights the true nature of Singapore’s legal punishment system – people are often left to fend for themselves within cold and harsh institutions that pay little attention to their humanity and vulnerability.

Case 1

A man applied for legal aid via the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) and the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) but was rejected with no reasons being disclosed in court.

The man indicated that he was unable to afford representation otherwise. As a result, he wished to plead guilty.

He also revealed that prison was making it difficult for him to make phone calls. It could take up to a week before they grant his request a phone call, and sometimes they are not allowed.

He requested the judge to formally inform the prison and the judge replied that a memo is usually sent by the court to prison in such instances to advise on the number of phone calls a prisoner may need to make for the purpose of bail.

Case 2

A man was informed by the PDO that his application for a lawyer was not registered because of missing information.

The missing information that was required was for the income of other household members and his savings balance.

The PDO said that letters were sent to him via the prison system and to his home. The man said his home address declared was only for registration purposes as he did not live there. He also mentioned that prison did not inform him of any letters.

Without addressing the issues the man faced in the process of securing a public defender, the judge ordered the man to decide if he wants to give up on his application or plead guilty.

Case 3

A man has been accused of providing shelter to an undocumented Chinese woman who has overstayed her visa in Singapore for more than 7 years. She had given him false information about her name and age. They developed a romantic relationship and the man sheltered her for 5 months while she worked as a food stall assistant. She has since been charged and sentenced.

Throughout their relationship, the man said he did not verify her immigration status nor felt the need to do so as she had a regular job and a place to stay. His lawyer argued that it is unlikely for someone in a romantic relationship to ask about a partner’s immigration status.

The man has a work pass that is valid till October. His employer would like to renew his work pass but was unsuccessful in doing so. He would like to know if he can continue working in Singapore but the judge mentioned that she, nor any institution, cannot guarantee him the right to work in Singapore.

The man has worked in Singapore since 2006 and is worried that he may not be able to continue working here anymore. The judge indicated that there are no exceptional facts to mitigate his actions as he was negligent in harbouring the woman. He will be jailed for 10 days and a $3000 fine was imposed.