Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

AGC should ensure that firm — but fair — justice is meted out

The case of Joshua Robinson, who was convicted of a range of sex crimes including sex with minors and making an obscene film, is still hotly debated.

The letter writer feels that an open trial for Joshua Robinson would have been useful in educating parents on how to protect their children against similar crimes. Photo: Cynthia Choo

The letter writer feels that an open trial for Joshua Robinson would have been useful in educating parents on how to protect their children against similar crimes. Photo: Cynthia Choo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

The case of Joshua Robinson, who was convicted of a range of sex crimes including sex with minors and making an obscene film, is still hotly debated.

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) adopted a strong legalistic position to account for why it will not appeal against the four-year jail term imposed on the 39-year-old.

It said that at a pre-trial conference last year, the prosecution had indicated to the defence and the court that it would press for four to five years’ jail. Robinson decided to plead guilty instead of claiming trial.

The AGC then said that in arriving at the sentence, the prosecution took into account that by securing a guilty plea, the three young victims would be spared the trauma of having to testify and be cross-examined in a trial.

Law Minister K Shanmugam acknowledged the public discontent as well as the AGC’s constraints in the case, and has asked for a relook of the sentences for such offences.

These augur well in terms of developing the government-citizen relationship in our country.

That being said, perhaps one could still make a case for a more prudent handling of the matter by the AGC in the first place.

First, had the AGC exercised more ground sensitivity, it could have pushed for a full trial such that a stiffer sentence above four years could be sought.

Second, by saying that the guilty plea spared the victims further distress in a court trial, the AGC might have inadvertently let a more deterrent punishment pass.

It has also missed the opportunity in using an open trial for public education. I am sure parents would be concerned about how they could better protect their children against similar crimes.

As far as the victims are concerned, do not underestimate the wisdom of the judiciary and the care of the presiding judge to hold proceedings in-camera where necessary, to dismiss ruthless questioning by the defence, and to disallow the victims to be challenged on frivolous points.

The Attorney-General should look at the broader picture of the public good.

The AGC should not play judge and jury, but ensure that the first principle of fair but firm justice is meted out. Leave it to the judge to show compassion.

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.