SDP Acquittal Recinded -- the very definition of poor judgment

My thoughts are after the article……

Apr 21, 2010
ILLEGAL PROCESSION
SDP group fined

They were convicted after a rare Govt appeal against their acquittal
FIVE leaders and supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) have each been fined either $500 or $600 for taking part in an illegal street procession in 2007.

They are SDP chairman Gandhi Ambalam, assistant secretary-general John Tan, central executive committee member Chee Siok Chin and party supporters Yap Keng Ho and Chong Kai Xiong.

District Judge John Ng sentenced them on Monday, with Tan, Chee and Chong each fined $500 or five days' jail in default. Gandhi and Yap were each fined $600 or six days' jail in default.

The five applied for time and were given until May 14 to pay the fines. They had faced fines of up to $1,000 each under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Earlier this month, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck allowed a rare appeal by the Government against their acquittal last October by the district court, and convicted the five.

He also sent them back to District Judge Ng for sentencing.

Read the full story in Wednesday's edition of The Straits Times.

In Sep last year, District Judge Ng probably didn’t realize the ripples his initial judgment would have caused. Only in Singapore would the proverbial ‘butterfly wing flaps’ of an impartial protection of constitutional rights cause a cyclone to rip through the fabric of society.

Judge Ng stunned observers by acquitting the leaders of the SDP as he judged that their procession on 16 Sep 07 “did not cause inconvenience to the public, affect traffic flow or make noise which disturbed the public peace.”

Key to his decision was the absence of the definition of what constituted a “procession” under the law as the legality of the walk hinges upon this definition. He concluded: "I am fortified in my views when I consider that the principal [Miscellaneous Offences] Act and the Rules were meant to relate to offences against public order, nuisance and property. The walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians."

As the Appended article above indicates, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck allowed a rare appeal by the Government against their acquittal and convicted the five. Justice Choo’s reasoning was that dictionary definitions (of the word “procession”) must be read in the context of local law, as the word ‘procession’ has ‘long defied exact legal definition’. He also added that “whether an event may cause public disorder, it was a risk for the police to assess, not the organizers” and “disorder may result not necessarily from the organizers, but from the members of the public observing the event.

I take issue with 2 points raised by Justice Choo:

[1] “context of local law” – What context is he referring to? At the time of the incident, the Miscellaneous Offences Act forbade the gatherings of 5 persons or more. Justice Choo’s reading of the incident was that even though the SDP members were not walking in groups of 5, they could easily coalesce into one.
Or was he actually referring to the political context of law whereby gatherings (of whatever number) for a “political cause” would inherently result in law and order problems? The non-issuance of permits for the Workers’ Party’s cycling event in 2007 comes into mind.

[2] “whether an event may cause public disorder, it was a risk for the police to assess, not the organizers”

This statement by itself is perfectly fine as the police are tasked to make such judgments and to bring offending parties to the courts for prosecution. However, the courts are in turn charged with the responsibility of assessing if these judgments are indeed valid and not accept them as status quo. Hence if Judge Ng was “fortified in my views” (as he put it) that the walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians, then the police’s initial assessment should – as it originally was - be overthrown.

So what grounds did the Government have for its appeal of the decision? What new evidence was considered? There seems to be none.

From the latest outcome, it reads as the act itself was deemed illegal as no permit was attained and Justice Choo disagrees with Judge Ng's assessment. And although the 'procession' (if you could define it as such) did not cause law and order issues, it could have, and as such, a permit should have been sought.

Now with hindsight, Judge Ng’s initial acquittal could therefore be seen as the ‘butterfly wing flaps’ that set in motion a hasty legal code reworking to prevent such impartial and independent readings of the law. The resulting ‘cyclone’ was the amendments to the Public Order Act slightly more than a month after.

As we have it, a good judgment was superseded by two massively poor ones.