Justice at the crossroads: 'Trash' in court hoopla...
Version update @
http://dangerous-precedence.blogspot.com/2007/10/justice-at-crossroads-trash-in-court.htmlWhy the big hoopla?
(see disclaimer below), exerps are from article below.
Because a Judge has judged not on substance but the book by its cover...
A simple analogy will help :
A robber 'breaks into' a mafia boss's home, tying up his 2 maids at (fake)gunpoint. Having found nothing substantive to steal upstairs, he explores the basement wine cellar, only to discover a woman gagged and tied to the staircase railing outside the cellar door. She motions him to enter the cooled cellar where in a fresh corpse is seen. A burglar alarm sounds, but before escape, the robber videotapes his findings, ostensibly with the intent of blackmailing the rich man/ releasing the captive (s).
The rich man refuses to pay blackmail$ nor release his captives and the photographs of the scene, deceased and captive are extremely incriminating. (Victims are persons on the police 'missing persons' files).
The robber then posts his pictures and video on U-tube...
Shouldn't the police investigate the matter?
Is the (criminally obtained) evidence admissible in the court of law?
Who is this High Court judge Andrew Ang i wonder...
And how does this episode differentiate Singapore from other parts of the world where $$$ influences the judgement: where Judges are corrupt, greased by the provision of $$?
Who then upholds the law of justice?
Why crossroads:
There is justice and there is Justice.
Some judges are plain corrupt.
Some are incompetent/ lazy, prefering dice/ expediency for convenience.
But the Golden few, they judge on substance. And it is because of such good men that our lives are a pleasure today.
And where does Singapore stand?
- "this is a grey area in Singapore law"- so I infer: the Mafia Boss is protected, police cannot investigate illegal footage?
- "Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies... ...come from places where their laws are more stringent. ...So, if we want to attract them here... ...We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'"- so Mafia Boss is welcomed to SG and its IRs?
"CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial."
The issue is one of case fact, and the court must address all relevant evidences of fact as the case so presents, eventually upholding the justice of the matter; if necessary, the Judge should make his judgement contigent upon the addressing of other pertinent issues, e.g.:
- Directing police/ lower court to investigate issue of trespass/ willful damage of pte property/ intimidation/ harassment and prosecute/ order eventual return of such property (after all material fact is admitted to the higher court) etc.
- informing defendents about restitutive means should plaintiffs have caused injury during any illegal actions.
- using such 'plaintiff violations' as mitigating factors in judgement where approprate but NOT disregarding any evidences of fact.
So I conclude that Singapore High court would have made a judgement of convenience, not a judgement of substance (having omitted essential material facts), in doing so, the SG high court has betrayed the cause of Justice.
Disclaimer:
(comments are solely based upon substance of report and accurate only to the extent of personal observation for the purpose of forum discussion; I cannot gurantee the accuracy of the quoted newspaper report).
-----------
The Electric New Paper :
Can trash be used in court?
Clear legislation on issue may help draw more MNCs to set up shop here, says one lawyer
CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?
By Andre Yeo
18 October 2007
CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?
Right now this is a grey area in Singapore law.
But it is allowed in the US state of Florida, said a lawyer who is here for the International Bar Association (IBA) Conference. He gave details of how a debtor was caught concealing his assets.
In Singapore, the issue came up when the High Court ruled in February that information from your rubbish bin can't be used against you.
But Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong allowed an appeal against the ruling, saying the issue would have 'serious repercussions for everybody'.
However, he said the issue of who owns the rubbish should be decided in a separate trial.
Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies would be comforted to know if there is clear legislation on this topic. They come from places where their laws are more stringent.
'So, if we want to attract them here, we need to offer them the same level of protection that they get in their own countries.
'We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'
Criminal lawyer Mark Goh said there were some hurdles to overcome when dealing with garbage ownership.
Said Mr Goh: 'Information can be confidential and must be separated from the physical piece of paper.
'So a person can argue that while he threw away the piece of paper because he did not want it anymore, he can also argue that the information contained on that piece of paper was confidential and he did not intend to give it away.
'So, the confidential information would still be his property.
'If I deliberately shred a piece of paper, that indicates I treat the information as confidential and want to deny public access to it.
'But if you retrieve it and piece it back together, how can you argue that it was in the public domain?'
FLORIDA CASE
Mr Martin Kenney, one of more than 4,000 participants from 120 countries at the IBA Conference, said in Monday's session on business intelligence and industrial espionage, that for 18 months, his law firm monitored a fraud suspect's movements at home.
He said his clients had accused the man in Florida of owing them US$21.9 million ($32m), which he had borrowed in a business deal.
He was also found to be involved in Medicare (a medical insurance programme for the elderly) fraud and was made a bankrupt.
Before Mr Kenney's agents began the sting operation, they had to make sure taking the man's trash was allowed there.
He said: 'We had to make sure it was not illegal in the state of Florida.
'It wasn't. It was by the side of a public road.
'As long as the trash was outside the person's property, it was considered 'abandoned property'.'
He said they found documents from the man's lawyers and other incriminating information showing he had had an elaborate plan to conceal his assets.
A settlement was reached, but Mr Kenney said he could not reveal its details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE question was posed last month in a case before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
Creditors who use private investigators to sift through debtor's bin want to use it against debtor in court.
High Court judge Andrew Ang says improper and/or illegal to do this, in February last year. Rules against creditors, but they appeal.
CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,145106,00.html?
Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.