APPEAL CASE OF MR YEO ENG SIANG

APPEAL CASE OF MR YEO ENG SIANG: 1.

Mr Arthur Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (a) if he will give an account of the case of Mr Yeo Eng Siang, whose appeal came through only after he had served his jail sentence; (b) is this case an aberration; if not, (c) what is the number of such cases over the last 10 years (1995 - 2004); (d) what measures are in place to ensure that there will not be such repeat cases; and (e) will the Government consider compensating Mr Yeo for the hardship he had endured.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this case received much media coverage and the impression given was that there was some serious lapse or travesty of justice. This is not the case, Sir.

First, let me explain briefly the processes before an appeal is heard. When an accused person appeals against his conviction or against asentence, several things must take place before the appeal can be heard.

The judge who convicted the accused would write the grounds of his decision. The accused (or his lawyers) would study

Column: 734

the detailed grounds before filing the formal petition of appeal, and prepare for the hearing. The public prosecutor also needs to study the documents and prepare for the hearing.

Even in the most efficient of legal systems, this sequence requires time. Indeed, it is in the interests of the accused to have adequate time to decide whether to appeal, to study the detailed grounds of the judge's decision, and to research and prepare arguments before the appeal court.

It is, therefore, neither practical, nor is it in the interests of justice, for the hearing of an appeal to follow the decision to appeal too closely.

Sir, short sentences of imprisonment, for example, of a day, a week or even a few months, may sometimes be shorter than the time required for the necessary processes prior to the hearing of an appeal. In such cases, if an appeal is lodged, it may be heard after the sentence has been completed. Because of this and the costs incurred, appeals against short sentences are rare. But thisis not peculiar to Singapore. It also happens in other jurisdictions with developed rules of procedure.

Now, let me turn to this particular case. Here, he was convicted on 26th November last year andsentenced toseven months' imprisonment. At first blush, this seems to provide ample time for an appeal.

However, he was released two months after being sentenced. This is because the sentence was effectively reduced tofour months and 20 days, to begin from 9th September 2004. Why was that so? Firstly, the court backdated the sentence to commencefrom the date when the accused was first remanded on the charge, and secondly, there was a

Column: 735

one-third remission of the sentence on account of good behaviour in prison. Therefore,he served out his sentence and was released on 29th January 2005.

Hefiled his notice of appeal on 3rd December 2004. There was a period of about two months between his decision to appeal and the hearing of the appeal on 1st February 2005. This is a reasonable period of time, and there was no delay in the sequence of events that followed the appellant's notice of appeal.

Mr Arthur Fongasked for data over a period of10 years to ascertain if this case is an aberration. I hope that Mr Fong understands when I say I do notthink that I should ask the courts to spend valuable resources to search records over 10 years. But so far as can be ascertained in the time available, there are no records of any similar cases. This is because of the peculiar combination of facts I have outlined. Indeed, out of a total of 233,135 criminal cases heard by the Subordinate Courtslast year, only 71 cases or 0.03% of them were heard by the High Court on appeal.

As for the measures to put in place to prevent such repeat cases, that implies that there was some serious lapse or shortcoming which warrants special measures. This is not the case, Sir.

Let me add that in most cases involving short sentences, the accused may decide not to appeal, or apply for bail pending appeal. The court has the discretion to stay execution on terms thatit deems reasonable, on the application of the accused. What happened here was that the accused did not apply for bail pending appeal.

Finally, the question of compensation does not arise. There was no malicious prosecution as there was more than ample evidence to prosecute him in the first place. There was no delay, let alone

Column: 736

inordinate delay, in the process of justice nor was there aflaw in the system.

There is no basis for compensation simply because a conviction had been set aside on appeal. As far as I am aware, no country in the world would do so on such terms.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for Law for letting us know that there was no miscarriage of justice in Mr Yeo's case. I also thank him for taking us through the jurisprudential process and the chronology of events that took place.

When the case of Mr Yeo Eng Siang was reported in the newspapers, it created quite a bit of public sympathy for him. Given the response by the Minister for Law, would he feel that the sympathy was misplaced?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I can only set out the facts which show that there was more to the case than meets the eye. Let me say that we have a clean andefficient criminal justice system in Singapore with tremendous international respect and reputation which concerns all stages - the Police, the courts, the prosecution. If there is any case of miscarriage of justice or serious lapse in the system, we would want to know - the Government, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General would allwant to know. But I do not think that this is such a case.

Let me also add that the accused person had criminal records going back to 1981. He has been imprisoned several times: in 1981, for theft; 1983, for theft in dwelling house; 1990, theft in dwelling house; 1991, theft; 1992, cheating by personation; 2001, cheating; and 2002, theft. And he had brushes with the law overseas. He has been in prison in the United Kingdom, Taiwan and the United States. He was deported to Singapore by Taiwan in 1986 and deported to

Column: 737

Singapore by the United States in 1990. The United States' Immigration andNaturalisation Service, in a letter, when arranging deportation, said that Yeo took advantage of every person he came into contact with and the story told by everyone he had befriended or had dealings with him, is the same, that he is a compulsive liar and a thief.