SINGAPORE: According to Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Tuesday, November 7, the Public Defender’s Office( PDO) has received 303 court-related programs as of September.
In response to a query from Member of Parliament Murali Pillai( PAP – Bukit Batok ), the minister provided an update on the PDO’s work.
The PDO was established in December 2022 to help those facing non-capital charges who are unable to afford legal representation in their legal defense.
It is entirely staffed by full-time criminal defense attorneys who have been hired by the Ministry of Law and is totally government-funded.
According to Mr. Shanmugam, qualified applicants for criminal defense assistance receive assistance from either the PDO or the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme( CLAS ).
According to & nbsp, with this co-delivery model, CLAS ‘ annual caseload in 2023 is anticipated to be lower than in the year 2022.
DEFENDING CASES THAT ARE” Socially Repulsive”
Mr. Pillai questioned how the PDO determines whether to offer legal assistance in cases involving alleged crimes that are deemed” socially disgusting.”
Mr. Shanmugam acknowledged that people accused of serious acts like sexual assault against helpless patients are among those who apply for legal defense assistance.
To make sure assistance is given to those who are deserving, each program is subjected to methods and virtues tests.
These evaluations are no based on the nature of the alleged offenses or the applicant’s social repugnance, he emphasized.
While the merits check determines whether the student will benefit from picture or has reasonable grounds to maintain or charm the event, the means test ensures that they cannot afford legal fees.
He pointed out that the PDO occasionally deals with incidents like family violence, child abuse, and sexual assault that you incite outrage in the general public.
But he added,” The PDO may fail to manage these instances.” The PDO & nbsp” has to handle the cases as long as they are assessed to have some legal merit ,” and” the test is not one of moral reprehensibility.”
He used the example of an allure involving a younger man who, between the ages of 15 and 17, sexually assaulted his younger sister.
The offender requested assistance from the PDO to charm his sentence after first receiving a sentence of 18 years in prison and 16 cane strokes.
According to Mr. Shanmugam,” Aid was granted because he met the requirements for the means test, and PDO determined that the appeal had merit on the grounds of the lower court’s increased sentence.”
The young man’s jail sentence was reduced by two years after the Court of Appeal agreed and & nbsp.