Lawyer seeks same-time verdict for 377A cases

General comments and chit-chat, or tell us how we can improve KiasuParents.com

Lawyer seeks same-time verdict for 377A cases

Postby chenwj » Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:57 am

Interesting developments. If anyone recalls, there were at least 2 contests against the male-male sex law, called Section 377A. I always thought these 2 cases were represented by the same lawyer but apparantly it wasn't.

One case is a guy caught having sex with another guy in public toilet and was charged under 377A but charges were later amended iirc. Another case is a same sex couple who argued that 377A is unfair by filing a case in the courts.

So now one of the lawyers want verdict of these 2 cases to be out at the same time so the one that came out first won't be the precedent for the other.

One of those side shows . Singapore is probably too boring. haha :dancing:


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/lawyer-seeks-s ... 36016.html

Human rights lawyer M Ravi on Tuesday appealed to Singapore’s High Court to issue its judgment on two ongoing constitutional challenges to its controversial gay law at the same time.

In a letter sent to Justice Quentin Loh, who is presiding over the case brought forward by Ravi’s client Tan Eng Hong, as well as the case of couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee, the lawyer expressed concerns that verdicts being issued one after another may compromise the outcome of the case that receives judgment later.

Pointing out that Tan was in 2010 arrested, charged and detained under Section 377A of the Penal Code — which criminalises consensual intercourse between men — Ravi argued that his client should be permitted to submit arguments in front of any hearing on the constitutionality of the law.

“Further, the Court of Appeal must have the benefit of the fullest possible arguments prior to issuing any judgment on such an important constitutional question,” he wrote, adding that Tan in his case had raised issues not brought forward in the case of Lim and Chee.

Ravi expressed his hope that in the interest of “a fair trial and access to justice”, judgment for both cases will be issued together so that appeals can be joined and heard together, in the interest of all parties involved, since both cases challenge the constitutionality of the Section.

Tan’s case against Section 377A began after he was charged under the act in 2010 for engaging in fellatio with another man in a toilet cubicle in a mall. After Ravi questioned its constitutionality, prosecutors modified the charges they placed against him to committing an obscene act in public, for which Tan and his partner were fined $3,000 each.

The case of Lim and Chee was brought forward to the High Court in late November last year, after the couple, who have been together for 15 years, did not want to be labelled as criminals. Their case was heard before Justice Loh in mid-February this year, while Tan’s case was heard in early March.

When contacted, one of the two lawyers representing Lim and Chee said they would be agreeable to Justice Loh’s judgment being issued either separately or together.

“I don’t think it’s our place to request when a judgment is to be issued,” said Choo Zheng Xi, who is assisting senior counsel Peter Low with Lim’s and Chee’s case. “We are happy to leave this in the judge’s good hands.”

chenwj
GreenBelt
GreenBelt
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:49 pm
Total Likes: 2


Re: Lawyer seeks same-time verdict for 377A cases

Postby AC_Power » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:06 am

M Ravi is the lawyer who is having some mental condition right?

Agree with Remy too that there is no need for the judgement to be made at the same time. Whether or not the constitutional challenge can go through, for the 2 to engage in unnatural sex in a public toilet still deserved to be punished.

AC_Power
BlueBelt
BlueBelt
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:52 am
Total Likes: 12


Re: Lawyer seeks same-time verdict for 377A cases

Postby chenwj » Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:51 am

AC_Power wrote:M Ravi is the lawyer who is having some mental condition right?

Agree with Remy too that there is no need for the judgement to be made at the same time. Whether or not the constitutional challenge can go through, for the 2 to engage in unnatural sex in a public toilet still deserved to be punished.


I remember M Ravi wanted to sue the Law society once and the Channel 5 news interviewed him outside the soceity's office. Ravi was with 2 colleagues and he was wearing a bright olive suit, while his colleagues wore black suit with sunglasses carrying placards. His actions and words then don't seem normal to me.

Whoever want to hanky panky in public, regardless with opposite sex or same sex, don't get caught in public (although it is a thrill to do in public.).. The younger days... :evil: :boogie:

chenwj
GreenBelt
GreenBelt
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:49 pm
Total Likes: 2



Return to Recess Time