SINGAPORE: One of the City Harvest Church members embroiled in the multi-million dollar criminal breach of trust trial wants a Queen's Counsel -- Caplan Jonathan Michael, who has experience in serious fraud cases and cases involving Criminal Breach of Trust -- to defend him, and a court hearing into that application began on Monday.
The church's investment manager Chew Eng Han said there is a lack of available local senior counsel with the appropriate expertise to represent him.
Lawyer P.E. Ashokan argued that Chew had taken
reasonable steps to secure a local senior counsel to fight his
case. He had engaged two senior counsel in the early stages of the
criminal proceedings, but due to issues of conflict, they were
unable to act for him. Mr Ashokan noted that efforts to engage
other local senior counsel had come to naught.
"Therefore it is clear that Mr Chew is unable to engage a local
senior counsel to defend him in the criminal proceedings through no
fault of his, and due to very exceptional circumstances where most
of the senior counsel in Singapore are unable to act for him," he
added.
His case is also unique in that he faces the possibility of unequal
representation as all but one of the other five co-accused have
hired senior counsel to defend them.
Chew is among six church leaders accused of conspiring to cheat the
church of millions of dollars. They are alleged to have funnelled
S$24 million into sham bond investments to further the career of
senior pastor Kong Hee's pop singer wife, Sun Ho.
The six are also said to have misappropriated another S$26.6
million to cover up the first sum.
The Attorney-General's Chambers, the Public Prosecutor and the Law
Society have all raised objections to the application, saying that
the legal and factual issues of the case are not complex enough to
require specialist foreign senior counsel.
The Law Society said that there are lawyers in Singapore, who may
not necessarily be senior counsel, with the relevant expertise who
can run Chew's defence but have not been approached.
Ms Aurill Kam, who represented the AGC, described Mr Ashokan's
point of the case being complex as an "exaggerated claim". Mr
Ashokan had pointed out that the documents relating to the
transactions are voluminous, with statements from the accused
persons alone numbering about 8,000 pages.
Ms Kam rebuked this, saying Mr Ashokan's claim conflates volume
with complexity.
Mr Christopher Daniel, who represented the Law Society threw up
some names and said that there was no explanation as to why these
lawyers were not approached.
"One can make the point that he (Chew) wanted a senior counsel, and
not to find a lawyer with the expertise who can run his defence,"
he noted. This prompted Justice V.K Rajah to point out that most
senior counsels specialise in commercial matters, and that the best
criminal lawyers are not senior counsels.
Justice V.K. Rajah will deliver his verdict on Tuesday.
-CNA/ac
Rich can afford. 