|
|
|
Prosecution
does U-turn and decides not to admit video 'evidence'
25
Oct 06
The trial started
with the defense lawyer, Mr M Ravi, announcing that he was
representing only Mr Yap Keng Ho, and that Dr Chee Soon Juan and
Mr Gandhi Ambalam representing themselves.
This was
because Mr Ravi had other cases to take care of, including his
own disciplinary hearing.
After making preliminary
applications in the morning, Mr Ravi returned in the afternoon to
tell the court that he had to discharge himself from acting from
Mr Yap because he had his own hearing to prepare for.
In
the morning Mr Ravi complained that the DPP had failed to provide
a copy of the video CD and a transcript the DPP had wanted to
submit as evidence. The VCD had purportedly contained recordings
of the speeches that Dr Chee, Mr Gandhi Ambalam, and Mr Yap Keng
Ho made on 22 Apr 06.
However, the DPP replied that there
was a "change of position"and that she was now not
going to use the VCD as evidence.
This raised eyebrows not
to mention the suspicion of the Defendants. Mr Ambalam and Dr
Chee quickly jumped on the Prosecution's about-face. If the DPP
had video evidence showing the Defendants giving speeches, why
did it not want to admit it in court? It would be the surest way
of ending the dispute and proving the prosecution's case. Unless
the video evidence showed otherwise.
It must be emphasized
that it was the DPP who, at the pretrial conference weeks ago,
said that she had the VCD recording and would tender it as
evidence. (In Dr Chee's trial in 1999, the Prosecution produced
video evidence of Dr Chee at Raffles Place giving a speech.)
The
Defendants then told the Court that they were going to rely on
the videotape to show that the DPP did not have a case. Mr
Ambalam and Mr Yap then made applications to compel the
Prosecution to produce the tape. The Judge refused to grant
it.
That was not all. When Dr Chee asked whether the DPP
had informed Mr Ravi when she changed her mind about using the
VCD, she replied that she was not sure and had to check her
records.
When she returned she indicated that a letter had
been sent to Mr Ravi on 15 Sep 06. Dr Chee then asked for a copy
of the letter which the DPP refused to give. At this juncture Dr
Chee said there was something fishy:
First, the DPP said
that the Prosecution would produce video evidence of the
Defendants making speeches and suddenly changed its mind. When an
application was made by the Defendants to have the evidence
produced, the Judge rejected it.
Second, the DPP refused
to give Dr Chee a copy of the letter she said she sent to Mr
Ravi's office in September that purported to inform the Defence
that the Prosecution had decided not to use the video evidence.
Dr Chee charged that the DPP was making this up as she had not
sent the letter, otherwise she would have offered Dr Chee a copy
of the letter. Dr Chee even offered to pay for the cost of the
photocopy. Again the Judge refused to direct the DPP to give Dr
Chee the letter.
Instead of the VCD, the Prosecution would
rely on 12 witnesses (all police officers) to make their case.
The Defence was surprised yet again and complained that they were
not informed of their change in strategy prior to the
commencement of the case. The DPP apologized but insisted that
the trial proceed, to which the judge agreed.
Based on the
above, Dr Chee then pointed out that the Prosecution was given a
free hand to make all the moves and reversals without giving
ample notice to the Defence. Dr Chee pointed out that this was
manifestly unfair and that asked Judge Eddie Tham (who was, it is
understood, himself a DPP until a few weeks ago) to record that
it was not possible, given the circumstances for the Defendants,
to expect a fair trial.
The hearing continues in
Subordinate Court No 18.
|
|
