On the second ground, Justice See said it was pertinent to note from case records that J was previously represented by two different sets of lawyers.
The first set had acted for him since 2020 and was discharged in May 2022, apparently because he disagreed with the lawyers’ advice.
The second set of lawyers was discharged in October 2022, when J was originally scheduled to plead guilty along with several co-conspirators.
J had apparently changed his mind, and counsel discharged themselves because of his inconsistent instructions.
“In short, the accused already had the benefit of legal advice for well over two years from two different counsel,” said Justice See.
“The fact that the accused was unrepresented when he pleaded guilty on May 4, 2023 is not relevant to whether his sentence was manifestly excessive.
“He was afforded every opportunity to mitigate. He was given more than sufficient and ample time to prepare for his mitigation.
The record would also show that I had endeavoured to guide him as much as I could through the course of the proceedings. I do not think that he was prejudiced or impeded in any way on account of being unrepresented.”
The judgment on Friday revealed new information about J’s account that was previously unreported.
This includes the fact that J blamed “irresponsible and unethical people” for trying to “over-sensationalise (his) case as a pornographic story that stems from fantasy of threesome sex and wife sharing/swapping” and for painting a persona of him which was “totally not what (he was) in reality”.
He claimed that he was “never interested” in the wives of his co-accused but had only been acting to reciprocate their friendship and help.
J sought to distance himself from his co-conspirators, explaining that he did not want to be sentenced together with them.
He added he did not want to be “seen and stereotyped as one who thinks and behaves the same as them, and have the same agenda”.
J also claimed that his actions and state of mind were “triggered” because he was influenced by two of the co-accused – K and L.
The appeal will be heard at a later date.