Re-open the decision upholding Vui Kong’s conviction

Yong Vui Kong’s lawyer, Mr M Ravi,  filed a constitutional challenge on 27/01/2012 morning and asked the court to, inter alia, re-open the decision of Vui Kong conviction and to declare that the selection prosecution between Vui Kong and the alleged syndicate mastermind is a violation of the equal protection rights under article 12 of the Constitution.

Details reports as following:

Selective prosecution? Re-open the decision upholding the Vui Kong’s conviction

Original post by theonlinecitizen on January 27, 2012

A Criminal Motion has been filed in the Court of Appeal today on behalf of Yong Vui Kong. The motion challenges the constitutionality of the prosecution’s decision to charge Vui Kong with a crime that attracts the mandatory death penalty while withdrawing previous charges made against Vui Kong’s ‘boss’, Chia Choon Leng.

In his affidavit, Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi, states that in acting in this manner, the Attorney-General has violated Vui Kong’s fundamental right to equal protection of the law enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Applying the standards set out by the Court in the recent case of Ramalingam Ravinthran vs PP, it is submitted by Mr Ravi, that ‘the Applicant is able to raise a prima facie case of a breach of Article 12(1).’

Chia has been identified by the Attorney-General’s chambers as the alleged mastermind behind the criminal enterprise that Yong was found to have been a part of. In reply to queries made by Mr Ravi, the Deputy Public Prosecutor confirmed that Chia had been arrested in connection with the trafficking syndicate that Vui Kong was a part of. Yong had also mentioned his name repeatedly to the police and to the court while accounting for his actions.

During the criminal trial in the High Court, it was found that Chia was the person who initially contacted Vui Kong, and subsequently provided him with the ‘gifts’ to deliver. The ‘gifts’ that Vui Kong was caught with was found to have contained the 47.27g of diamorphine, which he was sentenced to death for.

Chia however, remains uncharged and in executive detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Prosecution had informed the court that they had withdrawn charges against Chia due to a lack of evidence. However, Vui Kong, in his affidavit, states that, ‘ I do not recall having been asked by the Prosecutor to assist in relation to any difficulty of evidence perceived in relation to Chia.’

Such is the phenomenon created by the Mandatory Death Penalty, that despite being caught at about the same time as Vui Kong, in relation to the same criminal enterprise, third parties and parcel in question, the mastermind behind the criminal syndicate remains in detention while the courier that he recruited, who is young, naïve and in desperate need of money, is sentenced to death. This cries out for explanation as it goes against the very notion of justice.

Vui Kong, in his affidavit, writes that, ‘My complaint is that if the Attorney-General felt unable to prosecute Chia in the circumstances, he should have felt unable to prosecute me and my prosecution (for a capital offence) on those same facts can only be described as a treatment which is not equal within the meaning of Article 12(1).’

He further states that, ‘I do not understand how it can be possible for the Attorney-General to prosecute me in such circumstances given that on all the evidence before him, he is unable to prosecute Mr Chia the mastermind.’

According to Mr Ravi, ‘The evidence on record is sufficient to rebut the presumption of constitutionality with regards to the A-G’s decision to prosecute the Applicant for a capital offence while not prosecuting a more culpable party at all’. One such reason is ‘ the lack of any apparent reason for the Attorney-General’s decision other than a difficulty of evidence which is itself difficult to follow given the evidence against Chia’.

Another would be that, ‘it is contrary to any notion of justice that (all other things being equal) a less culpable offender should be charged with a more serious offence (and subjected to a more serious punishment) while a more culpable offender is not prosecuted at all when both are involved in the same criminal enterprise, especially when the punishment of a less culpable offender is death.’

In addition, Ravi also points to the fact that the courts intervention, ‘would serve an additional purpose in this case by reminding the Attorney-General of the legislative priority intended to be given as between categories of offenders under the Act.’

He cites the speech made by the then Law Minister, Mr Chua Sian Chin, who said that, ‘The death penalty will also be imposed for the unauthorized import, export or trafficking of more than 30g of morphine or more than 15g of heroin…It is not intended to sentence petty morphine and heroin peddlers to death’.

Ravi adds that the purposes of the Act, ‘is to target the masterminds behind the drug trafficking enterprises, not the low-level ‘peddlers’ recruited, forced or misled to traffic the drugs.’

The Court has yet to set a date for the hearing.

律师指放过毒枭违反宪法
申请检讨杨伟光死刑判决

獨立新聞在線 Jan 27, 2012 07:01:31 pm

【本刊记者撰述】马来西亚籍新加坡死囚杨伟光的辩护律师今天入禀新加坡上诉庭,申请检讨宣判杨伟光罪名成立的判决,以及要求上诉庭宣判,杨伟光遭选择性提控,反之犯罪集团首脑却逃过法网,已经违反了新加坡宪法。

新加坡宪法第12条款保障法律面前人人平等,然而总检察署以足以致死的贩毒罪名提控杨伟光,却撤回就杨伟光的“老板”谢春林(译名,Chia Choon Leng)作出的提控,杨伟光的辩护律师拉维认为,这已侵犯了杨伟光的宪赋权利。

杨伟光的辩护律师拉维(M.Ravi,左图)以最近新加坡上诉庭在Ramalingam Ravinthran对垒PP的案件立下的先例指出,申请人可以提出初步证据,证明已经违反了宪法第12(1)条款。

根据新加坡网络媒体The Online Citizen的报道,总检察署已经鉴定谢春林是杨伟光涉身的犯罪集团的幕后主脑。副检察司回应拉维的问题时确认,谢春林确实在一宗杨伟光涉及的贩毒案中被逮捕。

另外,杨伟光曾向警方和法庭一再提及谢春林的名字。

检控团宣称证据不足

根据报道,高庭的审讯显示,谢春林主动联络杨伟光,让杨伟光(下图)帮他带“礼物”。杨伟光被捕时,这份“礼物”被查出含有47.27公克的海洛因,结果被判死刑。

然而,谢春林并没有被提控,只在《刑事法(暂时条款)》下被扣留。检控团告诉法庭,他们因证据不足而没有提控谢春林。

然而,杨伟光在其宣誓书中指出,他不记得检控团曾要求他协助提供跟谢春林有关的证据。

拉维认为,目前的证据已经足以质疑总检察署何以提控杨伟光,却放过罪行较重的一方;总检察署给的理由只是“证据不足”,然而“证据不足”的原因却是总检察署没有跟进供词。

他指出,一名罪行较轻的人被控以足以致命的严重的罪行,反之一名罪行较重的人却完全没有被提控,这跟公正的概念相悖。

==========================

Affidavits of Yong Vui Kong and Lawyer M Ravi filed in Court on 27/01/2012:

M Ravi’s affidavit (with exhibits)

Yong Vui Kong’s Affidavit

Notice of Motion- 27 Jan 2012

===========================

More Reports can be found here:

Yong’s case one of “unlawful discrimination”, says lawyer (Publichouse.Sg)

About givelife2ndchance

Give Life 2nd Chance is a movement dedicated to work on abolish death penalty in Malaysia.
This entry was posted in Appeal / Open Letters, Legal Proceeding and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s