SINGAPORE: The defence in Pritam Singh’s ongoing trial failed to obtain a set of unredacted messages from a former Workers’ Party (WP) cadre on Wednesday (Oct 23).
The messages are from a chat group that Mr Yudhishthra Nathan had with former WP Member of Parliament Ms Raeesah Khan and fellow former WP cadre Ms Loh Pei Ying.
All three are prosecution witnesses in Singh’s trial for allegedly lying to a Committee of Privileges (COP) about whether he wanted Ms Khan to come clean about a false anecdote she told in parliament.
Singh’s lead counsel Mr Andre Jumabhoy had asked for the messages on Monday, arguing that it went towards showing the credibility of Mr Nathan, who is testifying, and whether he and Ms Loh aligned their evidence.
Aside from the unredacted messages, Mr Jumabhoy also asked for the redacted messages that Mr Nathan submitted to the COP and the reasons he gave for the redactions.
The defence had been given sets of similar documents in relation to Ms Loh, who was Ms Khan’s secretarial assistant, but not Mr Nathan.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, however, argued that the defence’s application did not cross the threshold for the prosecution to disclose the messages.
He said the test for the judge to order such disclosure is for there to be a basis that the messages will go towards showing the guilt or innocence of the accused person.
Mr Ang argued that the messages in question were sent post Oct 4, 2021, and that the prosecution has disclosed to the defence anything the trio may have discussed that relates back to Aug 8 or Oct 3, 2021 – the dates in Singh’s charges.
On Wednesday, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan recounted the Kadar disclosure obligations on which the application is based.
Kadar obligations refer to a duty for the prosecution to disclose certain material to the defence that falls under some criteria, including: Any unused material that is likely to be admissible and that is regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Judge Tan said that after careful examination of the redacted and unredacted messages, he was satisfied that none of them met this criteria, and that there was no basis in law to order the disclosure.
He also addressed the defence’s argument that the messages went towards the credibility of the witnesses, in particular differences between their evidence to the COP and their evidence in court.
Ms Loh testified before the COP on Dec 2, 2021, and Mr Nathan testified on Dec 3, 2021. They were asked to submit relevant messages to the committee after giving their testimony.
Judge Tan noted that as the redacted messages were only submitted to the COP afterwards, the documents were not available to the committee during Mr Nathan and Ms Loh’s oral testimony.
He said that the exercise of comparing the witness’ answers before the COP and in court would therefore not be “adversely affected” by the defence not having the documents.
He added that while there was no doubt as to the credibility of Mr Nathan, this was the case for all witnesses.
In his decision, the judge also stressed that the court was not concerned with and not in a position to comment on the COP’s conclusions and the evidence that was put before the COP.
He pointed out that the COP was a body that operated under different conditions and with different terms of reference and objectives from the court in the present trial.
“In any event, I note that both the prosecution and defence have accepted it’s not the mandate, nor is this court equipped, to form an opinion or render any view on the COP’s findings, and this court respectfully declines to do so.”
