DAG AND DEFENCE EXCHANGE FOR 30-MINUTES
As Mr Jumabhoy continued to press Mr Nathan about some redacted information, the judge interjected to suggest he was never convinced “what’s the significance of this training”.  ,
He inquired about whether he had the set of messages submitted, and Mr. Jumabhoy replied that he did certainly, but that he wanted to submit an application about that.
He agreed that he was laying the groundwork for him to create that software- to get the complete set of unredacted messages from Mr Nathan’s phone with regard to the group chat, as well as his reasons for redacting specific messages which he gave to the COP.
The defense had received pieces of comparable documents from Ms. Loh, but not from Mr. Nathan. They are now looking for the unredacted information from Mr. Nathan’s mobile between October 4 and October 12, 2021, as well as his justification for redacting them.
That time is important because Oct 4, 2021, was when Mr Shanmugam questioned Ms Khan about her murder story and she doubled down on her rest, and Oct 12, 2021 was when Singh met Ms Loh and Mr Nathan to explain what to do regarding Ms Khan’s lay.  ,
They eventually agreed to include Ms. Khan tell the truth, but it is not known whether they both agreed to do so.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said the trial has seen the unredacted information by Mr Nathan, which the officers looked at in the course of their studies.
Mr. Ang claimed to have professionally perused the communications and that some of them are listed in the lawyer’s collection of documents.
For instance, Mr. Jumabhoy, a learned friend, has been talking endlessly about changing the victim’s time in their documents, but it’s still in our lawyer’s bundle, unredacted.
” I have gone through all the emails. They are not in line with our Kadar responsibility. Everything in these communications in any way suggests that the accused man is innocent or guilty.
Kadar obligations refer to a commitment for the trial to publish certain materials to the defence which fall under some criteria, including: Any unused material that are likely to be accepted and that is regarded as reliable and important to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Mr. Ang continued making his submissions to the judge after getting Mr. Nathan to leave the court. He claimed that it appeared to him that the defense was going to make a submission that the COP was not given a specific message that was so important that it was denied access to any relevant evidence.
He said the only way for him to address that was to examine the COP report and said he may have to put in the COP report as part of the prosecution’s exhibits if this was the case.
Judge Tan then stated that he was unsure as to what significance the findings of the COP would have for Singh’s criminal case.
In a strict sense, he said,” Well, it’s neither here nor there,” regardless of whether the COP was detained or not.
” That’s exactly my point”, answered Mr Ang. However, I have not objected to the defense’s inquiries. I fully concur with your opinion and respect for your honor, so I’ve made sure not to mention the COP’s findings or include them in their report ( in the prosecution’s exhibits ). But if it’s the defence’s case to put in the COP findings to say it’s tainted or misled… how do we tackle that without putting in the COP report”?
He continued,” I have been very conscious of not mentioning the COP report or the COP proceedings in terms of its findings, but it seems like my learned friend wants to do that.”
Mr. Jumabhoy responded that his questioning suggests that there was a theory that Ms. Loh and Mr. Nathan were acting in accordance with the WP leaders ‘ orders.
” That narrative, we say, has been clearly shown to be a lie”, he said. They continue to operate in the manner that they have chosen. You can tell from the messages that they are the ones telling Ms. Khan to lie that they have n’t spoken to the party leaders. So if the question is- why did n’t she come clean from Oct 4 despite the visit from Mr Singh ( a day before ), it’s pretty plain why… her friends, her confidantes, are telling her- let’s continue to lie. In order to be completely honest, we should talk to Mr. Singh. And that results in a more accurate, in my opinion, narrative about what is happening.
The lawyer added that whether there is truth in this depends on what the messages say.
” We now know that these two have disregarded what they did despite being told not to discuss ( evidence to the COP),” the COP has learned. They have continued to align evidence, they have gone to remove, and they have continued to delete ( messages ), according to Mr. Jumabhoy with regard to Mr. Nathan, who is clearly in a mystery.
” It’s a reasonable inquiry in terms of the disclosure as to whether these two witnesses are lying about their evidence, and that includes the messages they’ve made, and whether in relation to these two messages, there are other messages which may be relevant”.
What happened on August 8, 2021, and what happened on October 3, 2021, Mr. Ang responded, arguing that this is the crucial factor in Singh’s case.  ,
” The evidence is relevant from what ( the prosecution has ) led so far, is on Aug 8, Ms Khan said she was told something by the leaders including Mr Singh. She texts Ms Loh and Mr. Nathan the following day in a message. And then two days later, on August 10, Mr. Singh, who is the accused person at the COP, refuses to tell Ms Loh and Mr. Nathan to follow up on this with Ms. Khan, said Mr. Ang.
” And why are we calling Ms Loh and Mr Nathan in relation to that Oct 3 conversation? Because of the meeting Mr. Singh had with Ms Loh and Mr. Nathan on October 12, where he tells them what he said to Ms. Khan on October 3. Again, it returns to the climax of the argument. And I should add, your honour, that at the COP proceedings, Mr Singh’s evidence to the COP, he accepts that he had a meeting on Oct 12 with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. He acknowledges that he discussed with them what transpired on October 3 and what he told Ms. Khan, so that’s why their evidence is pertinent on these two issues. Not because everything, including all of their discussions with Ms. Khan on October 4, is still relevant. It must relate back to the matters in dispute in this case”.
He emphasized that the defense wants messages after Oct. 4, 2021, and that the prosecution has since discussed possible details with the defense relating to the dates set forth in Singh’s accusations, such as Aug. 8, or Oct. 3.
Regarding Mr. Nathan’s admission to discussing his COP evidence with Ms. Loh, Mr. Ang claimed that they never went back to the COP again afterward to provide any evidence. So even if Mr Nathan accepted that they had discussed evidence,” the evidence is over”.
We had previously advised Ms. Loh to not discuss your evidence with anyone, especially the next case before this court, but after Mr. Nathan leaves the stand, will we inform him that you cannot discuss your evidence with anyone? Your proof is no longer relevant. So I do n’t understand my learned friend’s point when he says they discussed evidence… without pointing out that they had already completed their evidence”, said Mr Ang.
Judge Tan then responded,” Not quite. because they had not quite delivered the documents containing their messages. It’s not a case of it being released completely and that’s the end of the matter”.
Mr. Ang concurred, but added that the discussion between Ms. Loh and Ms. Nathan “is neither here nor there in some ways.”
” But if you discuss it to decide, among other things, what comes before the COP, is n’t that relevant”? asked the judge.
Mr. Ang responded that this has n’t yet been established.
The judge then asked the defense to clarify whether they wanted to include the findings of the COP report, claiming that it was “really not relevant to this trial.”
Mr Jumabhoy said this was why he objected to the COP report being put in “in the first place”, as the conclusions the COP came to are irrelevant, but the evidence put before the COP is relevant.
He claimed that Ms. Loh and Mr. Nathan” chosen to manipulate” the evidence they presented to the COP, and that their actions are “directly relevant to the evidence they present.”  ,
The discussion turned to how both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had made some redactions to their messages while unsupervised by the COP.
” So what we have is witnesses making some redactions, or whatever you call them, applying their own assessments, value judgments,” said the judge. It does n’t appear that the redactions ‘ contents were subject to any sort of third-party scrutiny. We have one example of Ms Loh then putting forward a reason that turns out to be not accurate. We are not aware of Mr. Nathan.
The defense” simply wants some documents from us ( the prosecution ), not as regards the guilt or innocence of the accused,” Mr. Ang then said.
” He wants your honour to make a finding that Mr Nathan gave false evidence to the COP when he redacted ( the messages ). It is very clear to me that my learned friend should be asked for your honor to investigate the validity of the COP findings, he said.
” I can tell your honor, I’ve looked at the redacted message from Mr. Nathan.” The reason he gives is… his reason is unrelated. However, if my learned friend disagrees, I will produce it, said Mr. Ang.  ,
He added that Kadar obligations are” not meant for the defence to get documents” or unused evidence from the prosecution” just dealing with credit or credibility”.
The accused person must be proven guilty, he said, and that is why we believe the threshold has not been crossed.
According to Mr. Jumabhoy, it is determined based on what witnesses have to say whether an accused person is innocent or guilty.
” If your honour finds they are credible witnesses, they have no reason to lie, that would go towards the guilt of the accused. Evidence that discredits this witness ‘ credibility would directly contribute to the accused’s guilt, he said. We believe that there is a solid foundation for the disclosure of these messages, both redacted and unredacted, given the circumstances.
The judge then told the defence that the point Mr Ang was making was that it was not relevant to current court proceedings “in a very broad sense” whether the witnesses lied to the COP or not after Oct 4, 2021.
Mr. Jumabhoy responded,” But the lie does n’t exist in a vacuum.” It’s not as though they’ve changed their COP testimony. They’ve come along to maintain their COP evidence. So the proof is a significant issue.
The judge then stated that there was a procedure to handle such disputes. In the process, the court is to examine the documents in question, before taking a view on whether the prosecution has breached its Kadar obligations of disclosure.
Mr. Ang claimed that the prosecution would need to spend some time getting the documents ready and having them handed over to the judge.
The credibility of Ms Loh and Mr. Nathan is an issue, according to Judge Tan, because it affects whether or not their evidence is credible, especially in the days leading up to Oct. 12, 2021, and even on that day.
The court then stood down the trial for the prosecution to prepare the documents for the judge to look at. On Tuesday morning at 11am, the trial will resume.
After that, Mr. Jumabhoy estimated that Mr. Jumabhoy would finish his cross-examination of Mr. Nathan in about an hour.
Following this, the prosecution is allowed to re-examine Mr Nathan on any questions that came up during the defence’s cross-examination.
LOW THIA KHIANG’S BREAK ENTRY TO COURT
The prosecution’s next witness is expected to be Mr. Low Thia Khiang, a former WP chief, after Mr. Nathan.
Evidence in court so far suggests that he had told Mr Singh to get Ms Khan to tell the truth” as soon as possible”, and that this advice assuaged Ms Loh’s and Mr Nathan’s feelings and got them to get completely on board with having Ms Khan tell the truth.
During the lunch hour, Mr. Low arrived at the State Courts to stand by and testify. He grinned at the people who had taken pictures of him, but he later vanished at around 4 o’clock.
Reporters approached him outside the court building. When someone wished him” all the best,” he responded that he could not hear them before thanking the recipient after receiving a clarification.
He was questioned about the proceedings on Monday by another person. Mr Low shrugged and said:” I do n’t know, I have not gone into the court”.
Witnesses typically wait until it’s their turn to testify in a holding room. They are prohibited from interfering with other witnesses ‘ testimony while it is being heard.
Mr Low declined comment on the case and eventually left in a car.