|
 ©The
Straits Times, Singapore (Used by permission)
by Selina Lum
• Former A-G argued two cases involving Official
Secrets Act
He is expected to seek life term for woman who got teen to
kill hubby
THE country's top prosecutor is expected to argue a criminal appeal before the
highest court in the land today.
Attorney-General Walter Woon is likely to urge the Court of Appeal to hand down
a life term to a woman who manipulated her teenage lover into killing her
husband.
The High Court dealt Aniza Essa, 25, a nine-year term in April.
By presenting the State's side in this case, Professor Woon will become the
first Attorney-General in more than 10 years to make a court appearance.
It will also be his first time in court since becoming Attorney-General three
months ago, though he has represented the State four times in criminal and civil
cases in the last two years, when he was Second Solicitor-General and
Solicitor-General.
The last Attorney-General to argue a case in court was Mr Chan Sek Keong, now
the Chief Justice. He appeared in court in 1994 and 1997 for two separate cases
involving the Official Secrets Act.
Prof Woon, Singapore's fifth Attorney-General, joined the Attorney-General's
Chambers in October 2006 as Second Solicitor-General after a distinguished
career as an academic, politician and diplomat.
In the four times he has represented the State since then, he has been
successful.
These cases included arguing against the appeal by 100 civil servants who wanted
to return to the pension scheme after more than 30 years on the Central
Provident Fund, and seeking a High Court order to restrain a property agent from
filing repeated applications to quash his criminal conviction for perjury.
Today, he is expected to push for a life sentence for Aniza before CJ Chan and
Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah.
The pub waitress was nailed on a manslaughter instead of a murder charge because
a moderate depressive episode impaired her responsibility for the offence.
Her 17-year-old lover, who admitted to stabbing her husband Manap Sarlip, has
been indefinitely detained at the President's pleasure.
Among the lawyers asked about Prof Woon's court appearance, Mr Vijay Kumar said:
'There must be some important issue he feels he must personally attend to.'
But others like Mr Wendell Wong were not surprised.
'He's known to be a passionate advocate and I see this as him taking a keen
interest in wanting to be involved first-hand in the criminal justice system,'
he said.
Former A-G argued two cases involving Official Secrets Act
by Selina Lum
THE last time the Attorney-General argued a case was 11
years ago.
Then Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong (left), now the Chief Justice (CJ), argued
before the Court of Appeal in July 1997 against the acquittal of lawyer
Christopher Bridges on six charges under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).
Mr Bridges had obtained the addresses of four people from a police officer,
supposedly for a lawyer relative of his who wanted to serve court papers on
them.
Convicted and fined, he appealed and was acquitted before then CJ Yong Pung How.
Mr Chan appealed against that but lost the case in Singapore's highest court.
A few years before that, he had prosecuted five men - including current Finance
Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Mr Patrick Daniel, the current
editor-in-chief of Singapore Press Holdings' English and Malay Newspapers
Division - in the Subordinate Courts for another OSA matter.
It was reportedly the first time an Attorney-General had fought a case in the
lower courts here.
In his opening remarks, Mr Chan went to the nub of the matter - that the
Government had to be able to keep sensitive information secret if it was to
function properly.
The trial went on to explore the issue of whether communicating and receiving
classified information was an offence only if it was done intentionally.
The charges surrounded the publication of a June 1992 article in The Business
Times, which revealed the Government's estimate of the country's second-quarter
economic growth a few days before the figure was announced.
The prosecution's case took 26 days between October and December 1993; the trial
resumed in February 1994 for another 17 days. In the end, all five suspects were
convicted and were each fined between $1,500 and $6,000.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
