Sammyboy RSS Feed
24-05-2014, 08:10 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
AGC wants M Ravi to pay costs over criminal motion (http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/24/agc-wants-m-ravi-to-pay-costs-over-criminal-motion/)
http://www.tremeritus.org/simages/dmca_protected_sml_120n.png http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/themes/WP_010/images/PostDateIcon.png May 24th, 2014 | http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/themes/WP_010/images/PostAuthorIcon.png Author: Editorial (http://www.tremeritus.com/author/editorial/)
http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/M-Ravi.jpgLawyer M Ravi
In an unprecedented move, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has asked the High Court to order lawyer M Ravi to personally pay costs incurred over a “wholly misconceived” and “vexatious” application Mr Ravi made in regard to the Little India riot last year.
Mr Ravi had earlier applied on 2 April for criminal charges against five of his clients implicated in the Little India Riot last year to be quashed. Mr Ravi filed papers stating that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) hearing into the riot, which had closed seven days earlier, had “offended the rule of sub judice” and denied the five men a fair trial.
In response, AGC filed an application to have his struck out. Yesterday (23 May), both sides agreed to withdraw their applications, but Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Hui Choon Kuen sprang a surprise wanting Mr Ravi to pay $1000 in costs.
DPP Hui argued in court that Mr Ravi was “negligent” and “unreasonable” in his conduct and “caused unnecessary costs to be incurred”.
“There was no genuine attempt to pursue a legitimate legal case; only a vexatious attempt to harass the opponent,” DPP Hui added.
Had he been genuinely concerned about the inquiry prejudicing his clients’ cases, he would not have “belatedly” raised the concern only after the five-week hearing had ended, DPP Hui argued.
This is a clear-cut case for the court to exercise its power to order costs against defence counsel who file “frivolous criminal applications because they do not think it will result in any personal downside”, DPP Hui added.
Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, the lawyer representing Mr Ravi, argued that Mr Ravi had acted in good faith by reconsidering his motion and withdrawing it when he felt it would not succeed. Mr Ravi may have felt that the COI hearing would prejudice his clients’ cases only if their views had not been presented, Mr Thuraisingam said.
And after the prosecution moved to strike out Mr Ravi’s criminal motion, he did the responsible thing and withdrew his application, Mr Thuraisingam added.
Mr Thuraisingam also argued that Mr Ravi is entitled to act in his clients’ interests at various points in time.
Urging the court to be slow in ordering costs against defence counsel, he noted that if this discretion is exercised the wrong way, it would have a chilling effect and deter criminal lawyers from acting for accused persons to the best of their ability.
Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye reserved his decision to a later date.
Mr Ravi later told the media, “It is unfortunate that the Attorney-General has taken out this application… It will prevent counsel from advancing any possible arguments that they can think of.”
Meanwhile, Mr Ravi himself is representing blogger Roy Ngerng in handling a letter of demand from PM Lee.
In the latest developments, PM Lee has rejected Roy’s proposal to waive asking for damages even though Roy has already apologised (‘PM Lee rejects Roy’s plea against damages (http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/24/pm-lee-rejects-roys-plea-against-damages/)‘).
PM Lee’s lawyer, Davinder Singh from Drew and Napier, said that falsely accusing PM Lee of misappropriating CPF savings is a “very grave and highly malicious allegation”, which fully entitled him to damages.
PM Lee, through Mr Singh, set a deadline of 5pm on Monday (26 May) for Roy to send in a written offer of damages and legal costs. If Roy fails to do so, legal proceedings will commence. Mr Singh said the damages that are offered should reflect “the gravity of the false and malicious charge”, its widespread circulation, and the standing of PM Lee.
It’s unfortunate that both Roy and M Ravi are being asked to pay costs and damages at the same time.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?182314-AGC-wants-M-Ravi-to-pay-costs-over-criminal-motion&goto=newpost).
AGC wants M Ravi to pay costs over criminal motion (http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/24/agc-wants-m-ravi-to-pay-costs-over-criminal-motion/)
http://www.tremeritus.org/simages/dmca_protected_sml_120n.png http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/themes/WP_010/images/PostDateIcon.png May 24th, 2014 | http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/themes/WP_010/images/PostAuthorIcon.png Author: Editorial (http://www.tremeritus.com/author/editorial/)
http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/M-Ravi.jpgLawyer M Ravi
In an unprecedented move, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has asked the High Court to order lawyer M Ravi to personally pay costs incurred over a “wholly misconceived” and “vexatious” application Mr Ravi made in regard to the Little India riot last year.
Mr Ravi had earlier applied on 2 April for criminal charges against five of his clients implicated in the Little India Riot last year to be quashed. Mr Ravi filed papers stating that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) hearing into the riot, which had closed seven days earlier, had “offended the rule of sub judice” and denied the five men a fair trial.
In response, AGC filed an application to have his struck out. Yesterday (23 May), both sides agreed to withdraw their applications, but Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Hui Choon Kuen sprang a surprise wanting Mr Ravi to pay $1000 in costs.
DPP Hui argued in court that Mr Ravi was “negligent” and “unreasonable” in his conduct and “caused unnecessary costs to be incurred”.
“There was no genuine attempt to pursue a legitimate legal case; only a vexatious attempt to harass the opponent,” DPP Hui added.
Had he been genuinely concerned about the inquiry prejudicing his clients’ cases, he would not have “belatedly” raised the concern only after the five-week hearing had ended, DPP Hui argued.
This is a clear-cut case for the court to exercise its power to order costs against defence counsel who file “frivolous criminal applications because they do not think it will result in any personal downside”, DPP Hui added.
Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, the lawyer representing Mr Ravi, argued that Mr Ravi had acted in good faith by reconsidering his motion and withdrawing it when he felt it would not succeed. Mr Ravi may have felt that the COI hearing would prejudice his clients’ cases only if their views had not been presented, Mr Thuraisingam said.
And after the prosecution moved to strike out Mr Ravi’s criminal motion, he did the responsible thing and withdrew his application, Mr Thuraisingam added.
Mr Thuraisingam also argued that Mr Ravi is entitled to act in his clients’ interests at various points in time.
Urging the court to be slow in ordering costs against defence counsel, he noted that if this discretion is exercised the wrong way, it would have a chilling effect and deter criminal lawyers from acting for accused persons to the best of their ability.
Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye reserved his decision to a later date.
Mr Ravi later told the media, “It is unfortunate that the Attorney-General has taken out this application… It will prevent counsel from advancing any possible arguments that they can think of.”
Meanwhile, Mr Ravi himself is representing blogger Roy Ngerng in handling a letter of demand from PM Lee.
In the latest developments, PM Lee has rejected Roy’s proposal to waive asking for damages even though Roy has already apologised (‘PM Lee rejects Roy’s plea against damages (http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/24/pm-lee-rejects-roys-plea-against-damages/)‘).
PM Lee’s lawyer, Davinder Singh from Drew and Napier, said that falsely accusing PM Lee of misappropriating CPF savings is a “very grave and highly malicious allegation”, which fully entitled him to damages.
PM Lee, through Mr Singh, set a deadline of 5pm on Monday (26 May) for Roy to send in a written offer of damages and legal costs. If Roy fails to do so, legal proceedings will commence. Mr Singh said the damages that are offered should reflect “the gravity of the false and malicious charge”, its widespread circulation, and the standing of PM Lee.
It’s unfortunate that both Roy and M Ravi are being asked to pay costs and damages at the same time.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?182314-AGC-wants-M-Ravi-to-pay-costs-over-criminal-motion&goto=newpost).