This Week In Court

– Week of 4th October –

This week in court, we saw two cases where bail was forfeited and how the Court’s decisions might have failed in properly considering the circumstances leading to bailee absconding, or the bailor’s difficulties in exercising their responsibilities at that particular point in time.

As the cases also highlight, the forfeiture of bail can have serious consequences on the bailor, who often are family members of the accused person. The Courts in Singapore simply do not do enough to adjust bail amounts according to one’s means and ability to pay, such that the cost of bail and the potential sanction if an accused breaks their bail terms are fair and reasonable.

It is crucial that the legal system addresses the social, economic circumstances of those involved with it, whether as accused or bailors, with due respect for their rights and liberties even as criminal sanction is ongoing, instead of treating them as case files to be processed.

Case 1

A mother appeared in court as bailor for her son. Her son did not show up to court, and has been uncontactable since May.

Before speaking to the judge, she provided a stack of documents including a police report she filed against her son and papers indicating that she has been unwell. The judge read the police report, but did not read the other documents submitted.

The judge chided the bailor, stating that she should not expect the court to “plow through this whole stack” and figure out what she is saying.

The bailor was then ordered to forfeit bail. She requested to make payment in instalments of $200 every month, as this was what she could afford. This was granted by the court. The $15,000 bail will take years to pay off.

Case 2

A bailee, an NS defaulter, did not turn up to court. The judge asked the bailor who was present if she could find the accused. In a distressed state, the bailor clarified that she had made efforts by calling him and contacting his friends about his whereabouts.

The judge said that it was insufficient and insisted it was her responsibility to locate him. The bailor was choking on tears trying to speak under pressure, saying that she had done everything she could to find him.

The judge asked for the prosecution’s position on forfeiting bail, and prosecution left it to the judge. The bailor had told the judge that the bail amount was over a year’s worth of salary.

The judge ordered the full amount of the bail to be forfeited.