In response, Mr Jumabhoy said his questioning suggests that there was a narrative Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were putting forth, that suggests they were operating under the WP leaders’ instructions.
“That narrative, we say, has been clearly shown to be a lie,” he said. “They’re operating under whatever position they have adopted. They haven’t spoken to party leaders, and you can see from the messages, that they are the ones telling Ms Khan to lie. So if the question is – why didn’t she come clean from Oct 4 despite the visit from Mr Singh (a day before), it’s pretty plain why … her friends, her confidantes, are telling her – let’s continue to lie. We should talk Mr Singh out of this view (to tell the truth). And that creates a better, in my submission, more accurate narrative as to what is going on.”
The lawyer added that whether there is truth in this depends on what the messages say.
“We now know that in relation to what these two did, that despite being told not to discuss (evidence to the COP), they’ve disregarded that. They’ve gone on to align evidence, they’ve gone to remove, and with respect to Mr Nathan, a clearly unfathomable position, they’ve gone on to remove (messages),” said Mr Jumabhoy.
“It’s a reasonable inquiry in terms of the disclosure as to whether these two witnesses are lying about their evidence, and that includes the messages they’ve made, and whether in relation to these two messages, there are other messages which may be relevant.”
In response, Mr Ang said the critical issue in Singh’s case is what happened on Aug 8, 2021, and what happened on Oct 3, 2021.
“The evidence is relevant from what (the prosecution has) led so far, is on Aug 8, Ms Khan said she was told something by the leaders including Mr Singh. She sends, on that very day immediately after the meeting, a message to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. And then two days later, on Aug 10, even though it is the case run by the accused person at the COP that he had told her to tell her parents and then come back again, on Aug 10, Mr Singh doesn’t tell this to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan to follow up on this with Ms Khan,” said Mr Ang.
“And why are we calling Ms Loh and Mr Nathan in relation to that Oct 3 conversation? Because on Oct 12, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had a meeting with Mr Singh, where Mr Singh tells Ms Loh and Mr Nathan what he said to Ms Khan on Oct 3. So again it goes back to the crux of the charge. And I should add, your honour, that at the COP proceedings, Mr Singh’s evidence to the COP, he accepts that he had a meeting on Oct 12 with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. He accepts that he discussed with them what happened on Oct 3, what he told Ms Khan, so that’s why their evidence is relevant on these two issues. And not because everything, all their discussions between them with Ms Khan on Oct 4 onwards is somehow relevant. It must relate back to the matters in dispute in this case.”
He emphasised that the messages the defence wants are post Oct 4, 2021, and the prosecution has disclosed to the defence anything they may have discussed which detail back to Aug 8, or Oct 3 in 2021, the dates stated in Singh’s charges.
About Mr Nathan admitting to discussing his COP evidence with Ms Loh, Mr Ang said they did not return to the COP again thereafter to give any evidence. So even if Mr Nathan accepted that they had discussed evidence, “the evidence is over”.
“Just as we had told Ms Loh – don’t discuss your evidence with anyone, especially with the next witness that comes to this court, but after Mr Nathan gets off the stand, are we going to tell him – you cannot go home and discuss your evidence with anyone? Your evidence is over. So I don’t understand my learned friend’s point when he says they discussed evidence … without pointing out that they had already completed their evidence,” said Mr Ang.
Judge Tan then said: “Not quite. Because they had not quite provided the documents (containing their messages). It’s not a case of it being released completely and that’s the end of the matter.”
Mr Ang agreed but said the fact Ms Loh and Ms Nathan discussed the evidence “is neither here nor there in a way”.
“But if you discuss it to decide, among other things, deciding what goes before the COP, isn’t that relevant?” asked the judge.
Mr Ang replied to say this has not been established yet.
The judge then asked the defence to clarify if they wanted to put in the COP report findings, saying he felt it is “really not relevant to this trial”.
Mr Jumabhoy said this was why he objected to the COP report being put in “in the first place”, as the conclusions the COP came to are irrelevant, but the evidence put before the COP is relevant.
He argued that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had “chosen to manipulate” the evidence they gave to the COP, and this conduct is “directly relevant to the evidence that they give now”.
The discussion turned to how both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had made some redactions to their messages while unsupervised by the COP.
“So what we have is witnesses applying their own assessments, value judgments, whatever you call it, made some redactions,” said the judge. “It doesn’t appear there was some third-party scrutiny as to the contents of the redactions. We have one example of Ms Loh then putting forward a reason that turns out to be not accurate. We don’t know about Mr Nathan.”
Mr Ang then said that the defence “simply wants some documents from us (the prosecution) not as to the guilt or innocence of the accused”.
“He wants your honour to make a finding that Mr Nathan gave false evidence to the COP when he redacted (the messages). It is, to me, very clear, with all due respect to my learned friend, (he is) asking your honour to go into the integrity of the COP findings,” he said.
“I can tell your honour, I’ve looked at it (Mr Nathan’s redacted message in question). The reason he gives is … his reason is unrelated. But nonetheless if my learned friend doesn’t agree I will produce it,” said Mr Ang.
He added that Kadar obligations are “not meant for the defence to get documents” or unused evidence from the prosecution “just dealing with credit or credibility”.
“It must go to the guilt of the accused person, that is why we say the threshold has not been crossed,” he said.
In response, Mr Jumabhoy said the guilt and innocence of the accused is decided listening to what witnesses have to say.
“If your honour finds they are credible witnesses, they have no reason to lie, that would go towards the guilt of the accused. Evidence that undermines this witness’ credibility would directly go towards the guilt of the accused,” he said. “We think, in the circumstances, there is a clear basis for these messages, the redacted and unredacted, to be disclosed.”
The judge then told the defence that the point Mr Ang was making was that it was not relevant to current court proceedings “in a very broad sense” whether the witnesses lied to the COP or not after Oct 4, 2021.
“But the lie doesn’t exist in a vacuum,” answered Mr Jumabhoy. “It’s not as if they’ve come along and departed from their COP evidence. They’ve come along to maintain their COP evidence. So the evidence … is very much an issue.”
The judge then said there was a process to deal with when disputes of such sort come up. In the process, the court is to examine the documents in question, before taking a view on whether the prosecution has breached its Kadar obligations of disclosure.
Mr Ang said the prosecution has the documents and can hand them to the judge, but would need time to prepare them.
Judge Tan then said that the issue of Ms Loh’s and Mr Nathan’s credibility, especially leading up to Oct 12, 2021 and even on that day itself, “is an issue”, because it goes to whether their evidence is to believed or not.
The court then stood down the trial for the prosecution to prepare the documents for the judge to look at. The trial will resume on Tuesday morning at 11am.
After this, Mr Jumabhoy estimated he would take about an hour to finish his cross-examination of Mr Nathan.
Following this, the prosecution is allowed to re-examine Mr Nathan on any questions that came up during the defence’s cross-examination.
