The Best I Could (30 page)

Glenn Knight and I were classmates at university. We studied law together. Unlike me, he was a brilliant student. He worked very hard and got into the legal service. He was, at the time, an up and coming star in the Attorney-General’s Chambers. He was a very good prosecutor but an arrogant twit who thought he was better than he actually was. However, I must say that he was one of the rare prosecutors who had the courage to make decisions that were fair. When he was a DPP at the Subordinate Courts, many lawyers who had made representations to him came out happy because he had either reduced a charge or withdrawn it. He was one who would reduce a charge or even withdraw it if he thought it merited a withdrawal. In that sense, he was a very good DPP.

John Koh and Glenn Knight were the deputy director and director of the Commercial Affairs Department respectively. The fact that they were both capable and intelligent didn’t faze me because however good you are, you must have a good case to win. They say a lawyer is as good as his case.

JBJ’s trial was a very high profile case because he was then the only opposition member of parliament. The court was always crowded with local and foreign press. When I arrived at Court 1 at the start of the trial with John Mortimer, I asked Glenn Knight and John Koh if we could all see Michael Khoo in his chambers as I had something to discuss with him. They said that they themselves had tried to ask for an appearance in chambers but was told by the district judge that whatever they wanted to say could be said in open court. But I still insisted on seeing him. I went up to Miss Kong, Michael Khoo’s personal assistant, and told her the reason why I would like to see him in chambers: I wanted to introduce John Mortimer to him. It was a normal courtesy call.

Michael Khoo agreed to see us and the four of us walked into his chambers. Glenn Knight was peeved as his application to see the judge in chambers had been turned down. I introduced John Mortimer to Michael Khoo. They shook hands. Michael Khoo said: “Mr Mortimer, I’ve read your books and I find them very interesting. It’s a pleasure to meet you in person.” They exchanged pleasantries and then we left.

There were a total of four charges against JBJ, the Workers’ Party’s secretary-general, and Wong Hong Toy, the party’s chairman. Glenn Knight and John Koh were very meticulous in their work, but the evidence they produced was shabby. At the end of the prosecution’s case, Glenn Knight made a very strange application in court. He wanted to amend the charges without giving any notice of his intention to do so. I immediately asked John Mortimer to object. He stood up and objected very strenuously to the prosecution’s last minute amendment which he said was unfair, unreasonable and caught the defence by surprise. He said that this shouldn’t be the way things ought to be done. Senior District Judge Michael Khoo nodded his head and said: “Mr Mortimer, can you tell me what are your reasons? Give me the authorities.”

Without any hesitation, the QC replied, “Sir, I was told to object by my learned junior and I did. Will you allow me to give you the reasons after lunch?” The whole court laughed.

Michael Khoo just smiled and said, “Well, I’ll adjourn it to the afternoon and by that time you should give me the reasons.” John Mortimer agreed. He then told me that he was having lunch with our client and asked me to find the reasons why we were objecting. I immediately went to the Subordinate Courts library, took the precedents and authorities, and prepared the arguments. I only had a sandwich for lunch in the Bar Room that day. After his lunch, he came to the Bar Room and I gave him the authorities. He read it and said, “Well, it looks sensible, it looks reasonable. I think the judge will have to uphold our objection.” I smiled in agreement. He then added, “Do you know what’s funny about this whole thing, Subhas?”

“What, John?”

He laughed. “If our objection is upheld, people are going to say I’m a damn good QC but if it is not, they are going to say that his assistant is incompetent and didn’t furnish me with the sufficient materials.” I laughed nervously.

Back in court, we argued our objection and Glenn Knight was asked to reply. He was very upset with our objection and the way the case was proceeding. He stood up and said: “I do not know why Your Honour is asking me to reply. We have been doing it this way all the time. We have been amending charges whenever we feel like it, even at the end of the prosecution. If I’m not mistaken, even you, Sir, when you were a DPP, also amended charges at this stage. So, what is the problem?”

Michael Khoo simply looked at him and said: “Maybe I too did it when I was a DPP, but now I am being told by counsel for the defence that what we did was wrong. Instead of giving me the reasons why it is not wrong, you choose to talk about what I did when I was a DPP. As an officer of the court, I expect you to be of assistance.”

I could see that the judge was quite annoyed. Glenn Knight knew he had gone too far. He promptly apologised and assured Michael Khoo that he would return with arguments to counter our objections. But the arguments he brought forward were weak and did not throw any light on the matter. The judge rejected his reasons and disallowed his application to amend the charge. In fact, he dismissed one charge without calling for the defence which angered Glenn Knight even more. However, it was decided that JBJ could choose whether he wanted to give evidence in his defence. He said he would.

I have to say that I’ve never seen as vicious a cross-examination of anyone as I saw Glenn Knight cross-examine JBJ. Some of the questions were unwarranted. A lawyer himself, JBJ told Glenn Knight that the implications of the questions were very vicious and should not be asked. Michael Khoo was silent and stared at Glenn Knight. Halfway through the case, John Mortimer left for California where his book
Rumpole of the Bailey
was being launched as a TV programme. He told the judge: “Your Honour, I have to take leave at this stage because I have an important engagement in the States. I’m leaving the defence in the capable hands of my learned junior. I have complete faith in him. I wish Your Honour well.” Michael Khoo also bade him farewell. I was left alone to face Glenn Knight and John Koh.

When the evidence was completed, both sides made their submissions. Michael Khoo acquitted JBJ on all charges except one where he was fined $400. We came out of the court feeling very happy about the whole matter. Waiting outside the court were party supporters who garlanded JBJ, Wong Hong Toy and I. There was a big celebration, but I was not feeling very comfortable with it as I felt it would just make a lot of people angry.

True enough, the prosecution appealed against the acquittal and the case came up before then Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin. In the Petition of Appeal, the prosecution raised the point that Michael Khoo was wrong not to allow them to amend the charge. But strangely enough when it came to arguments, the appeal was argued by the head of crime, Tan Teow Yeow, because Glenn Knight had left for London for further studies. Tan was assisted by John Koh. Frankly, I did not understand what they were saying in support of the appeal. They were beating about the bush. They abandoned the ground about Michael Khoo not allowing the amendment.

I was arguing the case for JBJ, who in turn was arguing for Wong Hong Toy. We knew from the outset, from the way the Chief Justice was reacting to our arguments, that we were going to get a tough time. True enough, he gave us a difficult time. I remember particularly one instance in the appeal when I told him that it was very difficult to prove common intention between JBJ and Wong Hong Toy and the person who gave a particular cheque, which was the subject matter of the charge. The evidence was that both Wong Hong Toy and the donor of the cheque were speaking in Mandarin. It has never been proven that JBJ could understand or speak Mandarin. So we were out to prove that definitely he could not understand what the conversation was all about and as such his mere presence while Wong Hong Toy was talking to the donor could not make him guilty of the common intention charge.

Chief Justice Wee stopped me and asked, “Weren’t you counsel for the defendants in the lower court? Weren’t you present when evidence was given that they were speaking in Mandarin?”

To both these questions I said, “Yes.”

“Why didn’t you ask the witnesses whether JBJ could understand Mandarin or not? You could have clarified the situation then,” the Chief Justice said.

It was one of those rare times when I really lost my cool in court. I replied, “Is it my job to prove the prosecution’s case? Isn’t it their duty to prove that JBJ understood Mandarin? Why should I do the work for them?”

There was silence from the Chief Justice. After a while he raised his voice and said nastily, “Carry on.”

The trial went on. In the end, Chief Justice Wee gave judgment that the case should be sent back to the Subordinate Courts and that defence should be called for the charges where defence was not called originally and for the case to be heard again. Our appeal against one conviction was dismissed. The cases were transferred back to the Subordinate Courts. Normally, the judge who heard the case earlier on would continue to hear the case and call for the defence as ruled by the Appellate Court. But in this instance, that could not be done because Michael Khoo, the judge who had originally heard the case, was transferred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers as deputy public prosecutor. He was no longer a judge and his transfer was actually a demotion. JBJ commented about the transfer and hinted that it was most probably due to the fact that Michael Khoo had acquitted him. JBJ also said that there was public disquiet. For making those statements, there was a parliamentary inquiry which got JBJ into further trouble. But that’s another story.

When the case came before the Subordinate Courts again, the next district judge to hear it would have been Chandra Mohan, who was the Second District Judge. Out of the blue, a day or two before the hearing, we were told the case would be heard by Errol Foenander, who had just been transferred to the Subordinate Courts as the Senior District Judge. We found this strange because Errol Foenander was the head of crime in the Attorney-General’s Chambers when JBJ was originally charged with the offences. It would not have been fair for him to hear the case as the judge. So when the trial commenced, I stood up and made a preliminary objection that he should not hear the case because of the previous position he held in the Attorney-General’s Chambers. I said that justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done fairly. I gave him the authorities and asked him to disqualify himself and transfer the case back to Chandra Mohan.

Errol Foenander overruled my objection very rudely, I must say. He did not approve of my objection in the first place because every journalist in the court was scribbling very furiously about the reason for my objection. He remarked: “I’ll continue to hear the case and we’ll now proceed.”

Again JBJ was defending Wong Hong Toy and I was defending JBJ. Glenn Knight returned from London to prosecute and again was assisted by John Koh. As expected, (it was expected simply because of the Appellate Court’s decision), both JBJ and Wong Hong Toy were convicted.

After listening to mitigation, Errol Foenander decided to sentence JBJ and Wong Hong Toy to three months imprisonment for the offences. We lodged an appeal immediately and got both of them out on bail. I remember telling JBJ at one meeting while waiting for the Grounds of Decision that the three months imprisonment would not disqualify him as a member of parliament. I suggested that he should abandon the appeal against sentence and just argue on conviction. In fact, it would have been better if he had gone in and served the sentence right then. By the time the appeal could be heard, he would have served his sentence and we could just argue on conviction.

JBJ was very angry with me. “Why do you insist on me going to jail, Subhas? I don’t want to go to jail. I don’t think I should go to jail. I think we should fight the case.”

“Well, this is just my opinion because after serving the sentence and getting the one-third remission, you would be out in two months and you can be back in parliament, you know.” I added, “Politicians all over the world go to jail. That is why I suggested it.”

JBJ was not interested in my advice.

To argue the appeal we engaged Lord Emlyn Hooson, QC, who belonged to the same Chambers as John Mortimer. I assisted Lord Hooson in the appeal. Lord Hooson was a very dignified and well-respected man. We made our introductions and had a drink with JBJ in a room in the Raffles Hotel where Lord Hooson was staying. While JBJ was attending to a phone call, I turned to the QC and said: “My Lord, I feel that we should not appeal against the sentence because it is only three months and would not disqualify him as a member of parliament. I am afraid that if we proceed with the appeal against sentence, his jail sentence may be removed and replaced with a fine. If it is a fine of $2,000 or more, he would be disqualified from parliament. This is what I’m worried about. It can happen in the Appellate Court especially when we are appealing against sentence. So I think we should abandon the appeal against sentence.”

Lord Hooson replied: “You are absolutely right. I think it’s silly for us to appeal against sentence especially if he is going to run the risk of losing his seat in parliament.”

When JBJ joined us after his phone conversation, the QC told him: “I’ve been listening to Subhas and I think what he says makes sense. We should abandon the appeal against sentence and if the appeal against conviction is dismissed, you would go to jail. You can still continue to be a member of parliament on your release.”

JBJ was annoyed. “Emlyn, don’t listen to Subhas. He has all sorts of ideas. I don’t think I’ll be going to jail. I don’t think I’ll be disqualified. I don’t want to go to jail. Just follow what we had discussed earlier. We’re going to appeal against conviction and sentence.”

I remember Lord Hooson telling JBJ: “You might regret this decision. You are the client and if you want to go on, we will go on.” He looked at me and shrugged his shoulders.

The appeal went before Justice Lai Kew Chai. We argued for the whole day and Justice Lai was very polite. Tan Teow Yeow represented the State again with DPP Loke Yoon Kee. Again we felt that we had a good case because Tan Teow Yeow did not have much to say. At the end of the arguments, Justice Lai reserved his judgment. I remember Lord Hooson saying: “In the event the appeal is dismissed, my Lord, can I file some questions for public interest because I am leaving for London. I can’t wait indefinitely in Singapore. I thought I would like to file these questions.”