Following article is about the Kallang Murder case last year. I have no doubts the murderer is guilty of carrying out the crime, but, I also feel that the accused was denied his constitutional rights.
What do you think?
=========================================
I said that but...
Leong's lawyer argues that he changed police statement as he was misled and so it cannot be admitted in court. Judge disagrees
By Dawn Chia
May 07, 2006
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,106207,00.html?
FIRST, he claimed that he strangled his victim with a towel after she suggested a suicide pact.
Then, nine days after he gave his first statement, Leong changed his story.
The second statement said he killed Miss Liu Hong Mei to prevent anyone from discovering that it was he who stole her ATM card and withdrew more than $2,000 from her account.
Leong later claimed he was misled into making this statement.
He claimed that he 'trusted the IO (investigation officer)' and claimed the latter told him that he would help reduce his sentence and grant him access to his lawyers if he changed his statement.
This 26 Jun statement, his lawyers Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan argued, should be inadmissible.
They objected to it on the basis that it was not made voluntarily and it breached their client's constitutional rights and the criminal procedure code.
ACT OF BAD FAITH
Among other things, Mr Anandan told the court that Leong's rights had been breached as he was not allowed to see his client to 'inform him of certain rights that he was entitled to'.
He made this application, indicating that he was willing to see his client in the presence of the IO and DPP, more than once.
Mr Subhas said: '...allowing me to see my client in the presence of the IO and DPP is ... an act of good faith.
'...objecting to my seeing my client shows bad faith.'
He also questioned why Leong would change his statement after maintaining the same version in the first five police statements.
Leong claimed that the IO told him to change the statement as it would be 'more believable'.
He went ahead with it as he thought the IO would be able to help him.
He then signed the statement, which stated it was 'true and correct' and that 'no threat, inducement or promise was rendered to (him) before or during the recording of the statement'.
However, Deputy Public Prosecutor Lau Wing Yum told the court that Leong had no reason to change his statements.
He said: 'The accused is not a simpleton.
'He has no reason to change the statement just because he believes the IO.'
DPP Lau added: 'On 7 Jul, when the accused finally saw his family, and then his counsel, there was no attempt by him to inform the court that he had been given inducements by the IO.'
ACCEPTED
Justice Tay Yong Kwang rejected Mr Anandan's arguments and admitted the 26 Jun statement as evidence.
He accepted the IO's evidence and said there was no inducement or promise rendered to Leong during the recording of that statement.
Leong is expected to take the stand in his own defence at 2.30pm on Monday
==================================================================