|
|
|
Who's
lying – DPP or police sergeant?
Singapore
Democrats
28 Nov 07
The controversy over a mistake made
by the prosecution team deepened on the third day of Dr Chee Soon
Juan's and Mr Yap Keng Ho's trial at the Subordinate Courts.
The
fourth police witness, Staff Sergeant Lam Tien Chiang, took the
stand today and gave evidence that directly contradicted what DPP
Lim Tse Haw told the Judge.
At issue were four
photographs that were stapled together inside a pink paper
jacket. Printed on the cover was the time that the photographs
were taken.
The copies that were given to the Judge and
the defendants were marked 1545 hrs (3:45 pm). The DPP's copy
read 1700 hrs (5 pm).
When queried by defendants, DPP Lim
said in court yesterday that there was an error and the correct
time was 5 pm and not 3:45 pm.
Mr Lim told the Judge that
he had checked with Sgt Lam during a break yesterday about the
discrepancy and Sgt Lam had told him that it was a typographical
error and that the time indicated should have been 5 pm (see
here).
Shockingly
when Sgt Lam took the stand today he said under cross-examination
by Dr Chee that no one, not even DPP Lim, had mentioned to him
about the time error on the pink cover sheet.
This was
what transpired according to Judge Jasvender Kaur's record:
Dr
Chee: Did anyone talk to you about the error here (holding up the
pink sheet and pointing to the time that the photographs were
taken)?
Sgt Lam: No.
Dr Chee: Did the DPP talk to
you about this error?
Sgt Lam: No.
Dr Chee: Did the
DPP mention to you at all about the error or discrepancy?
Sgt
Lam: No.
Dr Chee: At anytime before you took the stand
today did the DPP mention anything to you at all?
Sgt
Lam: No.
The police witness had earlier testified that
it was the first time that he had come to know of the errors when
he went into the witness box.
This directly contradicted
what DPP Lim Tse Haw told the court yesterday. He said (again
from the Judge's record): "With respect to the typographical
error on the cover sheet of why my copy showed 1700 hours and
others showed 1545 hours, Sergeant Lam told me that he did not
prepare the cover sheet. That was done by the crime clerk."
At
this juncture Dr Chee asked the Judge to send Sgt Lam back to the
Witness Room so that he could clarify the matter with the DPP out
of the witness' earshot.
DPP Lim then explained: "I
think Sergeant Lam was there when I spoke to ASP Jeremy Koh and
Inspector Jason Lim..."
Dr Chee interjected: "What
do you mean 'think'. If Sergeant Lam had spoken to you, how can
you only 'think' he was there."
The DPP would only
repeat: "I think he was there." And then added: "The
situation was very dynamic."
Judge Kaur then
explained to the DPP what Dr Chee was getting at: If Sergeant Lam
had spoken to Mr Lim as the DPP had indicated, then he cannot say
he 'thinks' Sergeant Lam was present.
It was only then
that the DPP was willing to confirm that Sergeant Lam was present
at the meeting.
The flustered DPP even objected to the use
of the word "meeting". "It was not a meeting!"
Mr Lim insisted.
"All right," said Dr Chee, "is
'a get-together' any better?"
Dr Chee pursued: "And
why is it only now that the DPP is telling us that he had met
with ASP Jeremy Koh and Inspector Jason Lim when he said nothing
at all about these two yesterday. Remember, Your Honour, both ASP
Koh and Inspector Lim are also witnesses who have yet to give
evidence."
Given that the information was coming out
in bits and pieces and contradictory with Sgt Lam's testimony, Dr
Chee asked for the DPP to take the stand.
"I would
like DPP Lim to tell the court under oath exactly what happened
when he met with the officers. Otherwise he should give a sworn
statement as to what transpired," Dr Chee said.
Judge
Kaur said no to both applications.
And when asked when did
he meet the officers, the DPP said he could not remember.
"What
do you mean you can't remember? You must have met with them
either yesterday or the day before. The trial started on only
Tuesday. Did you meet them on Tuesday or Wednesday?"
The
Prosecutor thumbed through his notes, turned to his assistant who
was furiously checking through her notes on her laptop, and then
said that he could not remember.
He then asked the Judge
for help as to when the error on the pink cover sheet was first
raised.
"I think it was raised shortly after the
trial began on Tuesday," Judge Kaur said, referring to her
record.
Incredibly, Mr Lim replied: "Yes, then it
must have been Tuesday or Wednesday."
An exasperated
Dr Chee said: "We know that it was on Tuesday or Wednesday!
It has to be, because the trial started on Tuesday and today is
Thursday. So when did the get-together take place: Tuesday or
Wednesday?"
Then came the mother of all
prevarications: "Yes, either Tuesday or Wednesday."
(A
interesting test: Can readers remember whom you met and where you
were either yesterday or the day before? Is it so hard to recall
events over the last two days?)
"I am not asking you
something that took place a year ago. I am asking you to remember
events that happened only one or two days ago," Dr Chee
pointed out. "Besides, we were in court all day these past
two days. Surely it can't be difficult to remember which day you
met with the witnesses."
"I can't remember,"
DPP Lim insisted.
"You can't remember or you don't
want to remember?" Dr Chee said.
Judge Kaur came to
the rescue: "He said he can't remember."
Since
he couldn't get a straight answer from Mr Lim, Dr Chee then
turned to the DPP's assistant, Ms Wendy Yap, who was seated
beside Mr Lim taking notes.
Dr Chee had wanted to know if
Ms Yap had spoken to any of the police witnesses and, if yes,
when.
"I am the lead prosecutor and any questions
should be asked of me," Mr Lim insisted.
"I just
want her to confirm if she had spoken to any of the witnesses on
her own without DPP Lim knowing," Dr Chee said.
Judge
Kaur turned to Ms Yap and asked if she would like to respond.
"I
was in and out of the room and saw DPP Lim talking to some of the
witnesses but I didn't hear what was being said," the
assistant DPP replied.
The Judge ended the session which
had gone past 6 pm.
Will Sgt Lam Tien Chiang change his
testimony? Or will DPP Lim Tse Haw change his story? Or will some
other explanation be found overnight?
Find out when the
hearing continues tomorrow when Sgt Lam gets back into the
witness box.
|
|
