Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Little India riot: Prosecutors seek costs from lawyer over criminal motion

SINGAPORE — In an unprecedented move, prosecutors are trying to get lawyer M Ravi to personally bear the costs of an aborted bid to quash charges against five of his clients who are implicated in the Little India riot.

The prosecutors claim Mr Ravi had caused unnecessary costs to be incurred and are seeking S$1,000. Today File Photo

The prosecutors claim Mr Ravi had caused unnecessary costs to be incurred and are seeking S$1,000. Today File Photo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — In an unprecedented move, prosecutors are trying to get lawyer M Ravi to personally bear the costs of an aborted bid to quash charges against five of his clients who are implicated in the Little India riot.

Mr Ravi was negligent and unreasonable in his conduct and caused unnecessary costs to be incurred, argued Deputy Chief Prosecutor (DCP) Hui Choon Kuen, who is seeking S$1,000 in costs.

The lawyer had filed a criminal motion last month for criminal charges against his five clients — Arun Kaliamurthy, Rajendran Mohan, Ravi Arun Vengatesh, Selvanathan Murugaeson and Periyaiah Ganesan, who are awaiting trial for their role in last year’s riot — to be quashed, on the account that their cases had been prejudiced by the Committee of Inquiry (COI) hearing on the riot.

The application was made after his failed attempt to represent his clients before the fact-finding COI, presided over by former High Court judge G P Selvam and heard in February and March this year.

In March, Mr Ravi also told reporters in Chennai, India, that some clients were still kept in custody without any substantial proof.

The criminal motion was withdrawn yesterday after Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye gave his consent in the High Court.

In seeking costs to be borne personally by Mr Ravi, DCP Hui said that by requesting to represent his clients’ views and experiences in the riot before the COI, Mr Ravi had attempted to do the very thing that he objected to in the criminal motion.

While complaining about the COI hearing prejudicing his clients’ cases, Mr Ravi had also made statements to reporters in India about the merits of the cases against his clients.

Had he been genuinely concerned about the inquiry prejudicing his clients’ cases, he would not have “belatedly” raised the concern only after the five-week hearing had ended, DCP Hui argued.

This is a clear-cut case for the court to exercise its power to order costs against defence counsel who file “frivolous criminal applications because they do not think it will result in any personal downside”, he said.

Disagreeing, Mr Ravi’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said the evidence showed Mr Ravi acting in good faith. Mr Ravi may have felt that the COI hearing would prejudice his clients’ cases only if their views had not been presented, he said.

And after the prosecution moved to strike out Mr Ravi’s criminal motion, he did the responsible thing and withdrew his application, he added.

Mr Thuraisingam also argued that Mr Ravi is entitled to act in his clients’ interests at various points in time.

Urging the court to be slow in ordering costs against defence counsel, he noted that if this discretion is exercised the wrong way, it would have a chilling effect and deter criminal lawyers from acting for accused persons to the best of their ability.

The judgment will be released at a later date.

Related topics

riot

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.