Chief Justice said he understood this, but said:” My difficulty is- the language of the statute ( in Section 214 ( 1 ) ( d ) is not a moving target. The parliament chose the speech for the statute, which limits what the court may get.
If I can get right to the point, Mr. Singh, I think the claims you made regarding the interpretation of Section 214( 1 ) ( d ) are a challenge to us as a group within the language of 214.
He continued,” It’s difficult to see where you find a legal basis that can accommodate the little wider scope of discovery you are considering.”
For a situation and trial, identification requires parties to give the opposing party details and documents.
Then Mr. Singh introduced a section to the court that has been replaced with the recent criminal disclosure regime, which allows the defense to present evidence and information to the defense before a trial. This section has been repealed along with committal hearings.
He claimed that because he has less access to the defendant’s proof under the legal disclosure regime, his client today has fewer rights than the previous provisions governing committed hearings.
According to Justice Chong, Mr. Singh’s argument was” not a realistic one,” because the prosecution would be” shooting themselves in the foot” if they had the option to decline to accept certain statements.
According to Chief Justice Menon, Mr. Singh was requesting that the court “effectively craft a discovery plan” that would be comparable to what was used in prior committed sessions, and that’s a risk because parliament has n’t addressed it.
Instead, Section 214, which specifies what the new legal disclosure regime would require from the legislature, contained what information the prosecution may include in its case with the defense, including the statements the prosecution intends to confess at trial.
Iswaran left his federal jobs two days before his initial court appearance in January. Prior to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s ( CPIB ) investigation, he had been given a leave of absence.
If convicted of obtaining a significant factor as a public servant, Iswaran can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.
He faces sentences of up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to S$ 100, 000, or both if found guilty of fraudulently obtaining pleasure under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
If convicted of obstructing justice, he may be jailed for up to seven times, fined, or both.