Court Cases
Judge rejects fresh alibi evidence adduced by death-row convict accused of masterminding drug operation
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/09/27053359/featured-image-hanging-rope.png)
The High Court has rejected a convicted drug trafficker’s claim that he had an alibi on the day of the alleged offence, which was raised only after his appeal against conviction and the death sentence had been dismissed.
Justice Choo Han Teck described the defence by 47-year-old Norasharee as an afterthought in his 11-page written judgment dated 14 September 2020 (Monday).
On that same day, counsel for Norasharee, Mr M Ravi, and Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPP) Yang Ziliang and Daphne Lim, had appeared before the judge to make oral arguments on two other grounds which Mr Ravi had raised in an attempt to set aside Norasharee’s conviction. These grounds were dismissed by the judge after hearing oral arguments, but his full reasons for rejecting them can also be found in the written judgment made available immediately after the hearing ended around 10.50am.
Mr Ravi, in response to queries, expressed his intention to raise the argument before the Court of Appeal that Justice Choo had prepared the written judgment well before oral arguments were heard on the new grounds raised, as it was unlikely for the judge to be able to do so within the extremely short span of time between the dismissal of the oral arguments and the written judgment being made available to counsel, and thus giving rise to a powerful possibility of apparent bias by predetermination.
Norasharee was charged for abetment of drug trafficking, namely, by instigating one Mohamad Yazid bin Md Yusof (“Yazid”) to traffic in not less than 120.90g of diamorphine. While the act in question took place in question on 23rd October 2013, Norasharee was only arrested nearly two years later in July 2015.
At the joint trial, Yazid alleged that Norasharee had personally met him at VivoCity on the day in question and told him to collect the drug bundles from a Malaysian courier. Norasharee’s defence at the trial was that he was at VivoCity to have lunch with one Lolo (or “Lolok”), whose real name was Mohammad Faizal bin Zainan Abidin, his supervisor and colleague at Marina Keppel Bay.
The trial judge found, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that Yazid had no motive to frame Norasharee. Both courts also accepted Yazid’s evidence as truthful and found Norasharee’s evidence to be inconsistent. As a result, Norasharee was convicted of the charge he faced and sentenced to death in June 2016. Norasharee’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in March 2017. His petition to the President for clemency was subsequently rejected.
In July 2018, Norasharee, who was represented by Mr Gino Hardial Singh then, filed an application to re-open his concluded appeal on the basis that his trial and appeal counsel, Mr Amarick Singh Gill, had not called Faizal as a witness against his instructions.
In August last year, the Court of Appeal was of the view that there might have been some miscommunication between Mr Gill and Lolok, and therefore granted leave for Norasharee to adduce fresh evidence on the alibi defence.
When Lolok took the stand, he testified that he would had lunch with Norasharee “almost every day”, and notably he was involved in an argument with Norasharee on the day of the alleged offence – by making fun of a two-tone tan line on Norasharee’s forehead – which was recorded in a logbook onboard the vessel they cleaned.
As against this, Justice Choo ruled that there were material discrepancies between Lolok’s and Norasharee’s accounts of events during the material time. He also found Lolok to be contradictory and inconsistent between written declarations, and Lolok’s “late appearance” further undermined his credibility.
Mr Ravi had further raised the argument that Norasharee had suffered a miscarriage of justice due to non-compliance with the law and other failures in the investigation process by the Central Narcotics Bureau, such as failing to investigate Norasharee’s line of work and place of employment and failing to seize documents therefrom, as the logbook which purportedly supported Lolok’s testimony, could not be recovered and tendered as evidence.
This argument was rejected on the basis that there was “no apparent necessity” for CNB to investigate in such a manner as the authorities were not aware of the significance of Norasharee’s employment and/or his relationship with Lolok.
The correctness of Norasharee’s conviction will now be reviewed by the Court of Appeal at a subsequent hearing to be fixed.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Court Cases
Ex-minister Iswaran’s corruption trial postponed to 24 September
The criminal trial of former Transport Minister S. Iswaran, initially set for next week on 10 September, has been moved to 24 Sept. The Attorney-General’s Chambers confirmed that both the defense and prosecution requested the adjournment. Iswaran faces 35 charges, including 32 counts of obtaining valuables, two counts of corruption, and one count of obstructing justice.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/05174822/iswaran1-1.jpg)
SINGAPORE: The criminal trial of former Transport Minister S. Iswaran, initially scheduled to commence on next week on 10 September, has been rescheduled to 24 September.
A spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) confirmed this change on Thursday (5 September), stating that both the defence and prosecution had jointly requested the adjournment.
“Because it was a joint request, the court acceded to it,” said the AGC spokesperson.
This delay follows the Court of Appeal’s recent dismissal of Iswaran’s third attempt to compel the prosecution to disclose all statements from its intended witnesses.
The former PAP Member for Parliament for West Coast GRC faces a total of 35 charges.
These include 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption, and one count of obstructing justice.
The charges are linked to his interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings.
The charges against Iswaran involve alleged dealings with Mr Ong, including the receipt of various items such as tickets to the Singapore Formula One (F1) Grand Prix, football matches, and musical shows in Britain.
Mr Ong, credited with bringing the F1 race to Singapore, is also the chairman of race promoter Singapore GP. The prosecution alleges that these transactions, worth approximately S$218,058.95, were influenced by Iswaran’s role as Chairman of the F1 Steering Committee.
Additionally, Iswaran is accused of receiving valuable items such as bottles of whisky, golf clubs, and a Brompton bicycle from Mr Lum, with a combined value of approximately S$18,956.94.
These items were allegedly received while Mr Lum was overseeing the T315 contract, which involved addition and alteration works to the Tanah Merah Station and viaducts under Lum Chang Building Contractors and the Land Transport Authority (LTA).
Earlier, Iswaran successfully petitioned to have his charges heard in a joint trial rather than separately.
If convicted of obtaining valuable items as a public servant, Iswaran could face a prison sentence of up to two years, a fine, or both.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for corruptly obtaining gratification could result in a sentence of up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to S$100,000, or both.
Additionally, if convicted of obstructing justice, Iswaran could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison, a fine, or both.
Court Cases
S. Iswaran loses bid for witness statements disclosure for third time
On 3 September, former PAP Minister S. Iswaran’s third attempt to compel the prosecution to disclose all witness statements failed. The defence, represented by Davinder Singh Chambers, argued that Section 214(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the prosecution to disclose all witness statements, including drafts. However, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Woo Bih Li and Steven Chong, struggling to follow Mr Singh’s argument, dismissed Iswaran’s bid, stating the questions were not of law of public interest.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/03150007/Iswaran1.jpg)
SINGAPORE: On Tuesday (3 September), former transport minister S Iswaran’s third attempt to compel the prosecution to provide all witness statements to the defence was unsuccessful.
The 62-year-old former minister from the People’s Action Party sought permission to refer two related legal questions of public interest to the Court of Appeal: whether the prosecution is required to include witness statements as part of its case, and whether the court can order the prosecution to do so.
According to the CPC, the prosecution must serve the defense with its case before the trial begins. This includes conditioned statements that the prosecution intends to admit at trial—written statements admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.
The prosecution interpreted this to mean it only needs to provide conditioned statements of witnesses it plans to admit at trial.
However, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and his team contended that the prosecution should also provide all forms of witness statements, including “draft statements,” that it intends to use.
In dismissing Iswaran’s bid, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Woo Bih Li and Justice Steven Chong determined that the questions raised by the defense did not constitute questions of public interest law.
As reported by CNA, during the hearing, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Steven Chong expressed difficulty in understanding Mr Davinder Singh’s arguments. Justice Chong questioned the admissibility of draft statements, stating that it is impossible to intend to admit such drafts.
Both justices repeatedly indicated they were struggling to follow Mr Singh’s interpretation of Section 214(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Chief Justice Menon challenged Mr Singh’s reading, suggesting that it would require the prosecution to include all witness statements—whether signed or in draft form—when filing their case, even if the prosecution did not currently intend to use them at trial.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon questioned whether Mr. Singh’s interpretation required the inclusion of all conceivable evidence, regardless of its relevance at the time of filing.
Mr Singh agreed, explaining that the intention to admit evidence can be formed or withdrawn at any time. He argued that the law should not depend on when the prosecution decides to form that intention.
Mr Singh recalled that on 2 April, the prosecution asked the defence to consent to conditioned statements being filed without allowing them to see those statements first.
“So our position was – you can show us those statements before you ask us to consent. When we took that position, that we are entitled to see them before we would agree or not they changed their position and said we are not filing conditioned statements. ”
“So whatever one might make out of that, the point is intention is a moving target,” said Mr Singh.
Chief Justice Menon acknowledged Mr Singh’s points but expressed concern that the language of Section 214(1)(d) of the statute is not flexible or a “moving target.”
“The language of the statute was chosen by the parliament and it constrains what the court can order, ” Chief Justice told Mr Singh.
“And to be honest with you, Mr Singh, if I can cut to the chase, I think the contentions you are putting forward on the interpretation of Section 214(1)(d), I’m struggling to see how we can sustain those contentions within the language of 214.”
He also questioned where the statutory basis could be found to support the broader scope of discovery that Mr. Singh was advocating for.
Mr Singh then argued that his client has fewer rights under the current criminal disclosure regime, which replaced the previous committal hearing provisions.
He suggested that his client now has less access to the prosecution’s evidence.
However, Justice Steven Chong countered that this argument was “not a realistic one”, noting that the prosecution would disadvantage itself by not admitting certain statements.
Chief Justice Menon further pointed out that Mr Singh was essentially asking the court to effectively craft a discovery regime” similar to what existed under the old committal hearings, which is problematic because Parliament had not addressed it.
He clarified that Parliament intended for the new criminal disclosure regime, outlined in Section 214, to specify what the prosecution must provide to the defense, including only the statements the prosecution intends to admit at trial.
Trial for former Transport Minister S Iswaran to begin on September 10
Mr Iswaran was last in open court in July, where he lost his bid to compel the prosecution to make available to the defence all statements by prosecution witnesses.
The former PAP Member for Parliament for West Coast GRC faces a total of 35 charges. These include 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption, and one count of obstructing justice.
The charges are linked to his interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings.
The charges against Iswaran involve alleged dealings with Mr Ong, including the receipt of various items such as tickets to the Singapore Formula One (F1) Grand Prix, football matches, and musical shows in Britain.
Mr Ong, credited with bringing the F1 race to Singapore, is also the chairman of race promoter Singapore GP. The prosecution alleges that these transactions, worth approximately S$218,058.95, were influenced by Iswaran’s role as Chairman of the F1 Steering Committee.
Additionally, Iswaran is accused of receiving valuable items such as bottles of whisky, golf clubs, and a Brompton bicycle from Mr Lum, with a combined value of approximately S$18,956.94.
These items were allegedly received while Mr Lum was overseeing the T315 contract, which involved addition and alteration works to the Tanah Merah Station and viaducts under Lum Chang Building Contractors and the Land Transport Authority (LTA).
Mr Iswaran’s trial is scheduled to commence on 10 September.
If convicted of obtaining valuable items as a public servant, Iswaran could face a prison sentence of up to two years, a fine, or both.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for corruptly obtaining gratification could result in a sentence of up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to S$100,000, or both.
Additionally, if convicted of obstructing justice, Iswaran could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison, a fine, or both.
-
Opinion4 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Diplomacy3 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Food3 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Politics2 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Civil Society4 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion6 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy4 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Economy6 days ago
Singapore faces 25% increase in bankruptcy filings during first half of 2024