•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

Singapore. A drug trafficker languishing on death row is to be re-tried, after the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge who convicted him did not provide clear enough reasons for his decision.

Thong Ah Fat was condemned to hang in August last year despite claiming that he did not know the illegal substance he was carrying was heroin.

But the judge at his trial did not fully explain why he did not believe the 32-year-old's account, the Court of Appeal has found.

In a landmark ruling, it ordered that his case be heard again in the interests of open justice, because the original one-page judgment grounds were inadequate. It is believed to be the first time a retrial has been ordered for this reason.

Thong was caught with 10 packets of heroin in his car at the Woodlands Checkpoint in 2009. At his trial, he admitted he knew the bags contained drugs, but claimed he thought they were Ice and not heroin, which carries the mandatory death penalty for those caught trafficking more than 15g. He also claimed he was tricked into making a police statement taken shortly after his arrest.

Justice Choo Han Teck rejected his version of events, saying that they were "neither convincing nor coherent", and his evidence was "very thin." He sentenced him to death for trafficking heroin.

However, the Court of Appeal has now found that Justice Choo's findings were "problematic and his reasoning unclear."

It said it could not work out whether he did not believe Thong because of his demeanor, or for some other reason.

The court added there was objective evidence to show Thong was an Ice addict. But it was not clear whether the trial judge had considered this, a state of affairs which was "plainly unsatisfactory."

It said the judicial duty to give reasoned decisions had not been "adequately discharged." There was therefore no alternative but to re-try Thong for the capital offense under another High Court judge.

"It is never of course a light matter to order a retrial," said appeal judges Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah. "Much anxiety, inconvenience and even hardship is caused all round and sometimes the ultimate decision may not be different."

Nevertheless, they said a new trial would enable a different judge to "closely scrutinize afresh Thong's credibility in the context of all the relevant evidence."

It is especially important to have detailed reasons in his case, they added, as it involves a capital charge.

The court explained why judges have a duty to give a full account of why they delivered a sentence, and how far this duty should extend.

Justice Rajah quipped that, 200 years ago, an English judge gave this piece of advice: "Never give your reasons; for your judgment will probably be right but your reasons will certainly be wrong."

He said this would be "judicial heresy" today, adding that "the days when it sufficed for a judge to say 'because I say so' are well behind us." If they fail to give full reasons for their decisions, they could find it harder to defend their judgments if later challenged, he warned.

Providing explanations increases transparency and acts as an "important constraint on the judiciary's exercise of power", as the judgments can then be debated, attacked and defended. "Judicial accountability is associated with the notion of open justice," said Justice Rajah.

But the court added that for practical reasons, the need to provide explanations does not apply to interim procedural matters or routine sentencing .

This duty is almost always observed by Singapore's courts, said the appeal judges. They said lengthy or written judgments are not expected in every case, adding: "A brief judgment is not necessarily an inadequate one. There is always merit in conciseness and no virtue in prolixity."

However, the one in Thong's case was flawed as it did not explain the foundations for the findings of fact.

It also did not make clear how the judge decided that Thong was not credible in relation to pivotal issues. This made it "prima facie" inadequate.

"We are unable to affirm or overrule the judge's decision as we do not clearly understand how he arrived at certain primary findings of fact that led to his rejection of (Thong's) defense," said the Court of Appeal.

The lawyers defending Thong in the appeal also came under fire as the court found them to be of "little assistance."

"Their submissions fell well short of the standard that we ordinarily expect from counsel in matters of this nature," it said in its judgment grounds.

Reprinted courtesy of Straits Times Indonesia. To subscribe to Straits Times Indonesia and/or the Jakarta Globe call 021 2553 5055.