(Referring to the charge of “attempted murder”) Richard Teo says,

“Surely the charge can only be valid if the perpetrator of the crime can be identified.”

The issue is not one of validity but one of whether the suit is vexatious and frivolous. The issue of identification is one of evidence in support of the charge and is a matter that would be disposed off during trial and not before trial.

“There is no justification to detain the 31 members if the crime was committed by a single individual”

Conspiracy involves accomplices. If a single individual causes the injury, others who help are accomplices to the crime and would be just as liable.

“The prosecutor cannot expect the court to believe that the 31 perpetrators were responsible…”

The duty of the Prosecutor is to prosecute. He does not decide anything. In a non-jury trial the judge directs himself on the law applicable and then decides the guilt or otherwise of those who stood accused. In a jury trial the judge directs the jury on the law and the jury being a tribunal on the facts gets to decide, based on the totality of the evidence, whether those who stand accused are guilty or not guilty.

“How could the prosecutors cast a net so wide and hope per chance that it may catch the culprit from amongst the 31 protestors?”

The prosecutor will have to show prima facie evidence against those accused during the preliminary hearing. If the prosecutor fails to make a prima facie case against the accused, counsel for the defense would make his submission of no case to answer. The accused is then free to walk. Should evidence later surfaces, he can be re-arrested. No double jeopardy here.

“Can our justice be so vicious that 31 individual should pay the price for a crime committed by one individual?”

If it can be proved that they are accomplices, then it would not be proper to only charge the one throwing the stone that causes the injury when other stones were thrown by the others who were part of the group, but missed their target.

Justice is never “vicious”. Justice is not about fairness. Justice is about finding those who stood accused of the crimes they were charged with pay for the consequences of their actions according to the law.

“What is perhaps even more shocking is the refusal of the judge to grant bail to the 31 protestors.This literally means that the 31 Hindraf members whose guilt has not even being established will now have to start serving time before the actual trial
commence.”

When considering bail, the judge not only takes into consideration the nature of the crime, its seriousness, the evidence but also the flight risk. Time spent waiting for trial is considered during sentencing. Sometimes the accused is sentenced to time served. How convenient! To deny bail, the judge must have considered the evidence against each of the accused and find it compelling and the flight risk real.

It is preposterous to suggest that agencies dealing with law enforcement could be charged for enforcing the law!

P.S. Perhaps I should qualify the word “underpaid” when referring to the lower ranks.

Lawyers versed in the law of torts are familiar of course with the “The Thin Skull” Rule.

..also Jeffrey QC has given his lecture on the meaning of ‘nova causa interveniens’.

A first year law student studying tort law would know what the “thin skull” rule means. It means the tortfeasor takes the victim as you find him or her.

If the cannister (or a brick) fired into the air were to land on the head of a demonstrator and kills him, the defence would be that the policeman firing the tear gas cannister is only acting in the course of his duty – which is enforcing the law.

The defence cannot in law be “he has a thin skull” and his skull should not be that thin!

But this is in the realm of criminal law. The mens rea for murder is nothing less than “an intent to kill”. Was there an intent to kill?

ooops kin

“If a teargas cannister lands, accidentally or otherwise someone’s head, its liable to kill. There’s no need for a ballistics expert to ascertain this.”

Unfortunately it has nothing to do with science – but everything to do with the principle in the law of torts known as the “thin skull” rule – in addition to issues on duty of care, negligence and breach and foreseability and remoteness or if there is in operation as Jeffrey QC has pointed out a ‘nova causa interveniens’

In criminal law it has everything to do with intent – not just any intent but intent to kill.

So they not only throw out cases, they also throw out judges!

“Goodness me, can’t we see it is a political rally, and the government is responding “politically” through the court system?”

Of course we know that! Thanks for telling us what we already know.

Some of us are curious as to the legality of some of the issues and actions in court – for example, how the prosecutor could have charged the accused with “attempted murder” and if there is prima facie evidence sufficient to support the charge, and take it to the trial proper. The topic of this thread is after all “Police should also be charged with murder”.

Then there is the issue of a possible civil suit against the government which posters here raised.

We would welcome opinion about the issues rather than your comment on the commentators who comment on the issues.

How about giving us posters the benefit of your opinion on the issues – and spare us your caustic comments on the need to be “discerning” and “circumspect” without telling us what you mean?

Jong,

It is pointless! The guy has a huge ego. Shall we let the dogs out?

Your postings and mine have been censored by the moderator. We know that that is coming – which is why I invited you into a chat room. Fun while it lasted though!

To the one “who knows all, is smart, discerning and circumspect, writes English better than others, and is not stupid like others” freedom of speech does not include bashing others for not sharing your opinion which in this case we are not told anything about.

Let’s hear your opinon on the ISSUES!

Richard Teo says,

“Police should also be charged with murder”.

You cannot “charge” anybody! The right to prosecute is the prerogative of the Attorney General. Only the Crown can prosecute. There are exceptions though but this is not one of those.

“Yes, the attorney general power’s is not absolute. To believe so shows that the person does not know what good governance, fairness and transparency were all about.” limkamput

Here you’re again interested in the commentator rather than his comment. If you’re genuine about making a contribution to the blog stop being abrasive and personal in your comments. It is a distraction.

You could have said and I paraphrase here for readers to read:

“The Attorney General’s power should not be absolute because there cannot be good governance, fairness and transparency otherwise”

But you must put down a commentator who according to you knows less than yourself! We understand that you cannot help it because you have an out-of-control ego. But at least try to control it.

I wrote earlier:

“The right to prosecute is the prerogative of the Attorney General. Only the Crown can prosecute. There are exceptions though but this is not one of those.”

No mention in my statement about the power of the AG being absolute or not absolute! So I do not understand where you’re coming from with your statement – talk about a poster writing out of context!

Why are you hiding behind this thread. This is an old one.

It’s good to see that you’re toning down and becoming less confrontational, and less abrasive. However, you still sound like my wife! Whenever I give my views she thinks I’m trying to change her opinion.

Happy Holidays!