M Ravi vs AGC

 

M Ravi is in trouble again. It is the battle of apologies. This time, with the AGC. Not his first though. 

He had asked for an apology for his client’s acquittal on a capital charge, and AGC is in turn asking from an apology from him for, amongst other things more substantial, asking for an apology from them. The recriminations came in rather swift, and here is the report by Rei Kurohi in ST this morning. 

On Monday, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision to convict Ravi’s client, Gobi Avedian, on a capital charge. After that Ravi wasted no time to tell TOC that the prosecutors had been “overzealous” in prosecuting Gobi, which had “led to the death sentence” for Gobi. 

He also said that ““it was troubling” that the prosecution ran different cases before the High Court and the Court of Appeal.”” (Well, you have to read the case to decipher that).

Ravi called upon AGC to apologise to Gobi for the trauma he had to go through with the thought that he might lose his life over the serious charge. He even called into question “the fairness of the administration of justice in Gobi’s case by the prosecution.” 

But the response came in fast and furious like a lightning bolt on a carpark drift. AGC would have none of that. The honourable chambers sent a stern letter to Ravi demanding an apology and also demanding that Ravi “unconditionally retract the allegations he had made.” 

To be fair, I do not know what further things Ravi had said, but here’s AGC’s rejoinder: -

“These are serious allegations that the Public Prosecutor has acted in bad faith or maliciously in the prosecution of the applicant (Gobi).”

“They are false and highly inflammatory. It is highly improper and entirely contrary to Mr Ravi’s obligations as an officer of the court for him to make these unfounded, baseless and misleading allegations.”

AGC made it clear that CA “made no adverse findings against the Public Prosecutor or the prosecution of Gobi.” In fact, AGC stressed that CA said the AGC’s initial decision to convict the applicant was “correct at the time (it was) made.”

Ravi thus has until noon tomorrow to respond. But Ravi’s turret of unapologetic sense of justice is not standing down. It has in fact gone ballistic. 

He posted the letter from AGC in his Facebook and mentioned that he had taken his client’s instructions to “start proceedings against the Attorney-General Lucien Wong, Deputy A-G Hri Kumar Nair and Senior Counsel Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir, an AGC deputy chief prosecutor who led the prosecution’s case.” Those are big names in public prosecution. 

Ravi declared: “I will file the writ of Summons in the next few days, both personally against all three of the above government lawyers and also against their offices in which they hold public appointment. They have to be accountable to Gobi and his family in court and be subject to rigorous cross examination and scrutiny of their conduct of Gobi’s case.”

I guess at this moment Ravi was demonstrating with the exchange of correspondence whose gun is bigger. And here comes my commentary.

 

Alas, one request for apology begets another request for apology, and in this battle for apologies, I suspect no one will walk away fully vindicated, because apology is a tricky thing and the silent majority is not tone-deaf to the fifty shades of justice on a larger scheme of things. Let me explain. 

At the risk of being accused of “whataboutism”, let me just say that in the public eye, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too (and I will deal with “whataboutism” later). 

While it may or may not be “highly improper and entirely contrary to Mr Ravi’s obligations as an officer of the court for him to make these unfounded, baseless and misleading allegations”, subjecting that to a proper fact-finding exercise, we must not forget these words by CA on the recent Dr Wee’s controversial case. 

“Prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors. They are “ministers of justice” assisting in the administration of justice (see R v Banks [1916] 2 KB 621 at 623). As a “minister of justice”, the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court to arrive at the correct decision. It is neither the prosecutor’s duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor to “timorously discontinue proceedings the instant some weakness is found in their case””.

Now, let me be undoubtedly clear lest I myself ends up at the receiving end of a letter. This remark pertains to the nondisclosure of two important reports, which resulted in prejudice to Dr Wee’s charge and the way he would have conducted the trial/appeal - though the prejudice could be corrected. It has therefore nothing to do with Gobi’s case. With that cleared, here is the second part to CA’s admonishment of the prosecutor. 

“Before concluding this judgment, we take this opportunity to reiterate the Prosecution’s overarching duty of fairness. The Prosecution owes a duty to the court and the public to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. Arising from this, the Prosecution is obliged to disclose relevant material that can assist the court in its determination of the truth.”

That is one. Here’s another. 

It is the case of Parti Liyana. She laboured for 4 years to pursue justice to the end. And she had recently decided to proceed with her complaint against the conduct of the prosecution in her case. 

In the appeal, the judge remarked that the conduct of the police and prosecutors in dealing with the evidence in its custody and at trial were highly prejudicial to Parti. The possible contamination of the custody of evidence at Liew’s mansion and the nondisclosure of a video player that is essentially spoilt at trial was a “sleight of hand” by the prosecution in what seems like a selective presentation of the evidence. 

So, with the two recent cases in mind, where it was clear to me that there were some compromise on procedure and integrity, where’s the apology? 

Is it because the investigation is still ongoing? Are we waiting for our Law Minister to clear the air? 

But then, with the CA’s admonishment in Dr Wee’s case and the appeal judge’s remarks about some sleight of hand in Parti’s case, isn’t it clear that at least an apology is in order to Ms Parti Liyani? 

Mind you, she was a lone maid who was and is still separated from her loved ones because of some miscarriage of justice whereby the powers-that-be had a part to play. Why is an apology then kept at bay? 

(Doesn’t need to be an apology admitting guilt, but one to show one’s regret for the pain she had to go thru. For great leaders of other countries have done just that). 

And if “prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors...they are “ministers of justice””, then justice is equally about prosecuting a fault as it is about admitting to one 

(now I also have to bear in mind at this juncture that no one is perfect, and the AGC had on its own accord appealed on behalf of convicted accused to lower sentences and fines, and even acquittal. Kudos for that). 

But, going back to the issue, you may ask, mike, what about “whataboutism”? Shouldn’t you just deal with the issue, the relevant issue? Ravi’s remarks have nothing to do with Dr Wee’s and Parti’s case right? Yes, they are different cases with different facts. 

Yet, returning to what I first said earlier about “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, that is what the public perception of justice and reputational integrity is all about when it comes to one party demanding an apology from another. You see, if justice should not only be done, but need to be seen to be done, then protecting or upholding one’s reputation, especially that of a public office, works the same way right?

 

You want an apology from one, do you then give out an apology to another? In other words, in the face of an error, whether it is non-disclosure, a sleight of hand or a procedural laxity, shouldn’t the head takes the bullet, or responsibility? And metaphorically speaking, if the fish rots from the head, shouldn’t the head fights its own rot first before pointing out other people’s rot? 

(This basically goes back to what Jesus said about the log in your eye and the splinter in another’s).

So, that is how I address “whataboutism”. That is, yes, we should always stick to the issue, and deal with the issue, not the person, yet, like what Jesus said about the pharisees, “they tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” 

Mind you, the load that many accused of capital charges and theft have to bear are really heavy. A conviction is all in a day’s work for the prosecutors, and they can go on with other cases, rewarded with promotions and bonuses, and they no doubt deserve it, but an acquittal for an accused, in the case of Parti, is a life destroyed and she may even never recover from it. 

So, asking for an apology (as a form of acknowledgement of that) is not asking too much right? 

Alas, in the battle of apologies, you will find no full vindication because the log in some people’s eye are always behind them, out of sight, out of mind, but the splinter in others’ is just in front, and it just happens to be glaringly obvious.