SINGAPORE: The defence in Pritam Singh’s ongoing trial failed to obtain , a set of unredacted messages from a former Workers ‘ Party ( WP ) cadre on Wednesday ( Oct 23 ).
The messages come from a chat group Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan and former WP part Loh Pei Ying, both of whom were from the same organization.
In Singh’s trial, all three are accused of lying to the Committee of Privileges ( COP) about the truth about a fabricated account she gave in parliament.
Singh’s direct guidance Mr Andre Jumabhoy had asked for the messages , on Monday, arguing that it went towards showing the legitimacy of Mr Nathan, who is testifying, and whether he and Ms Loh aligned their information.
Mr. Jumabhoy even inquired about the redacted information that Mr. Nathan submitted to the COP and the justifications he gave for the edits, in addition to the unredacted information.
The army had been given models of similar files in relation to Ms Loh, who was Ms Khan’s administrative assistant, but no Mr Nathan.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, but, argued that the defence’s program did not cross the boundary for the trial to share the information.
He claimed that the judge must establish a foundation on which the information will support the prosecution’s case for finding fault or sincerity.
According to Mr. Ang, the emails were sent after Oct. 4, 2021, and that the trial had already disclosed to the defense any information the pair might have discussed in regards to Aug. 8 or Oct. 3, 2021, according to Singh’s accusations.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan provided a detailed explanation of the Kadar reporting requirements that the application is based on on Wednesday.
Kadar obligations refer to a responsibility for the prosecution to release certain information to the defense that meets certain standards, such as: Any unintentional information that is likely to be accepted and regarded as trustworthy and related to the accused’s guilt or innocence.
Judge Tan said that there was no legal justification for the publication and that none of the deleted and unredacted information had met this standard.
He also addressed the defense’s claim that the texts were intended to improve the witnesses ‘ trust, particularly the differences between their court-tested and COP-tested testimony.
Ms Loh testified before the COP on Dec 2, 2021, and Mr Nathan testified on Dec 3, 2021. After giving their witness, they were instructed to make any pertinent information to the council.
Judge Tan noted that during Mr. Nathan and Ms. Loh’s dental testimony, the committee was not able to access the redacted messages because they were simply presented to the COP afterward.
He claimed that the defense’s failure to have the papers had not “adversely affect” the comparison of the witness ‘ replies before the COP and in jury.
He continued, adding that, despite the fact that no one could question Mr. Nathan’s trust, it was true for all witnesses.
The judge added that the judge was not interested in and not entitled to make a comment on the COP’s inferences and the data that was presented to the COP.
He made it clear that the COP was a figure that operated independently from the court at the time of the test.
” In any event, I note that both the trial and army have accepted it’s not the authority, nor is this jury equipped, to form an opinion or provide any perspective on the COP’s findings, and this court politely declines to perform so”.