SINGAPORE—The judge in the trial of five Singapore Falun Gong practitioners charged with "Assembling Without a Permit" has issued her ruling, finding the defendants guilty, despite the defendants' contention that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, and that the evidence presented did not connect the defendants to the scene of the alleged crime.
On June 7 afternoon, Judge Amy Tung of Singapore Subordinate Court issued a ruling for the case of "October 22—Assembly without Permit." All five defendants were found guilty, and each was sentenced with the maximum fine of 1,000 Singapore dollars, or seven days in prison if the fine is not paid. All five defendants refused to pay the fine in protest of the unjust verdict, and were immediately removed from the courtroom by bailiff.
Later, relatives of the two of the defendants paid to have their imprisoned relatives released, without the defendant's consent. The remaining three defendants are still in jail.
Trial an Extension of CCP Persecution of Falun Gong?
Many people have stated that Singapore is pursuing this case with added zeal in an effort to curry favor with the Chinese Communist Party. Although the alleged offense took place on October 22, 2005, no charges were issued until July 2006, when Li Lanqing, a chief architect of the persecution of Falun Gong in China, came to visit Singapore.
Further, the defendants were distributing flyers about people quitting the Chinese Communist Party and about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Several other Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested, tried and convicted for distributing anti-CCP materials, or for holding up banners calling for an end to the persecution. All five defendants are Falun Gong practitioners.
The Prosecution Ignores Inconvenient Evidence
The defendants raised several points regarding the evidence presented, and also the evidence the prosecution chose to withhold.
The prosecution submitted a series of photographs, which it claimed supported the charge. However, there was no date- or timestamp on the photographs—they could have been taken at any time. Further, only one of the photographs showed definitively the location where it was taken; the rest of the photographs bore no signs identifying the scene, and could have been taken in a number of places.
None of the defendants appear in the one photo that was identifiably taken at the scene of the alleged violation. The prosecution submitted no photographic evidence placing the defendants at the scene when the alleged violation occurred.
Further, the statute regarding "Unlawful Assembly" requires that five people assemble without a permit. Though some of the prosecution photos show more than five people, none of them are in a group, and most are merely walking along a busy thoroughfare on their way to different places. None of the photos show the defendants together in a group of any size.
The only other evidence offered was the testimony of police officers who claimed they were at the scene. However, these police officers misidentified some of the people in the photographs. The defendants claimed that this cast doubt on the officers' ability to accurately identify the defendants in court,
In his closing remarks on June 5, Prosecutor (DDP) Hay Hung Chun ignored these issues, and focused on testimony made by the defendants, specifically: "Our distributing of flyers was very peaceful, and never caused any inconvenience to passersby. The contents of the leaflets is factual and helps people to learn the truth."
The prosecutor, Hay Hung Chun, claimed that since the defendants admitted that they were distributing flyers, his case was proved. He explained to the defendants, "I do not deny what you did is just and great, and you are not being charged for the contents of the leaflets. You are charged for doing this without permit. You need a permit even when carrying out actions which promote justice."
He further argued that since all the defendants were carrying materials saying, ""Support 5 Million withdrawals from the CCP" the people were all serving a common purpose, and thus were legally "assembled" even if they were all standing in different locations.
Did the Prosecution Withhold Important Evidence?
When first filing charges, the prosecutor announced that he would be supporting his case with a single piece of evidence, a police videotape of the events of October 22. This videotape would have a date- and time-stamp, proving that it was taken on the date and at the time that the alleged offence to place.
Later, the prosecutor withdrew the videotape from evidence, and denied the defense the opportunity to review the videotape. The defendants claim that it is reasonable to assume that the videotape provides exculpatory evidence, or else the prosecution would have used it in place of the undated and inconclusive photos that it instead presented.
Judge Tung originally wanted the video to be entered into evidence, as king the prosecutor, "Why do you reject their application for the video? There are no dates and times on the photos. If the video evidence has [dates and times], won't it be even better to have it as evidence?"
Eventually, the prosecutor was able to persuade the judge that the video should not be admitted.
Defendants Claim That The Prosecution Didn't Prove Anything
At sentencing, defendant Ms. Seah Ah Toh made a statement addressing the prosecutor's closing remarks. Seah raised several points:
"1. Hay Hung Chun's job is to prove we participated in an "Assembly". By citing our words, he can only prove that we "distributed flyers." We have never denied that we distributed flyers, but we categorically deny that we "participated in an assembly;"
"2. Singapore has no law against distributing flyers. It is a common sense that distributing leaflets is not an offense;
"3. The prosecutor attempts to equate "distributing flyers" with "participating in an assembly." The prosecutor needs to give conclusive evidence to prove that we participated in an assembly;
"4. Lacking solid evidence, claiming that we "participated in an assembly" because we distributed flyers is a false accusation;
"5. In his closing remarks, the prosecutor substituted opinion and assumption in place of facts and evidence. This is regrettable behavior for a legal professional."
The judge quickly responded to Ms Seah's statement, saying: "Although the defendant's statement has been allowed, it will not affect my judgment. I have already made my decision."
Prosecutor Reacts Strongly to Seah's Statement
Ms Seah continued: "International criminal trials are all based on the principle of "presumption of innocence." Singapore is no exception. This principle gives the defendants the legal right of "a prior presumption of innocence." It states that no person shall be considered guilty until being proved guilty in a court of law."
Ms, Seah made this remark in Chinese. The official court interpreter seemed to have difficulty understanding and translating the concept "presumption of innocence." Ms. Seah explained the remark many times, but the translator still seemed not to understand.
However, prosecutor Chun, who understands both English and Chinese, replied as soon as Ms. Seah spoke.
He called out, "You are allowed to be here now because of this 'presumption of innocence,' or else…" implying that the defendants would have been jailed without trial otherwise.
Judge: Right or Wrong is Not my Concern; Only the Permit Matters
Since the evidence provided by the prosecution was questioned so closely, all attention in the courtroom was focused on Judge Tung's Grounds of Decision.
Judge Tung stated, "The prosecutor said he does not totally rely on the photos; he also has the testimony of the police witnesses. The witnesses said that they saw the five accused on October 22. I am convinced by prosecutor and the police witnesses's words."
Judge Tung said that although no single photo showed all five people actually participating in an "Unlawful Assembly," the accused did appear in other photos, though nowhere together. The judge said she did not doubt that the photos were all taken on the same day.
Although defendants had submitted a formal application to see the videotape at the start of the trial, the judge ruled against allowing them to see the tape or introduce it as evidence. However, the judge cited remarks from the defendants' application in explaining her ruling.
Judge Tung said, "The accused say that if the video were shown in the courtroom, everyone would see how peaceful and harmonious the scene really was. This shows that the defendants were indeed at the scene.
"I agree with the prosecutor that you have done great things. But I am not here to judge whether you are right or wrong; my only concern whether you have permits. You committed an offence because you did not have permits."
"You Are Not Qualified to Be a Judge"
After the judge announced the conviction, she gave each defendant the opportunity to make mitigating statement. Mitigation is regarded as a major procedure and function in Singapore courts. All five defendants made clear that they had "committed no crime, and had no mitigating statement to make."
In addition, Seah Ah Toh told the judge: "You are still young. This judgment will be a black mark on your record. One day if you go overseas, you will feel ashamed of what you did today."
Defendant Cheng Lu Jin told her: "You only know how to follow instructions like a machine. You are not qualified to be a judge."
Singapore Lawyers: The Defendants Should Be Found Not Guilty
An Epoch Times reporter consulted some Singapore legal professionals about the conduct of the trial and the judgment. They all said that the burden of proving a case lies on the prosecution's side. The prosecutor must prove that the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with conclusive evidence, and cannot merely assume that they are guilty. Otherwise, the defendants should be acquitted. If the defendants raise a reasonable doubt, they should not be convicted.
In this case no single photo can prove the five people were at the scene at the time period. However, the judge decided that because a number of different photos show the defendants individually, it could be assumed that they were all there at the same time. This was never proven. The indictment states that the "Unlawful Assembly" took place between the hours of 1:50 p.m. and 2:45 p. m. on October 22, 2005. In that span of time, it should have been possible to photograph all five defendants together if they were really all there. Thus, there is reasonable doubt that all the defendants were present and together within the specified time period. Since there is no way to prove that all the photos were taken within that fifty-minute period, it is reasonable to assume that they might have been taken over a longer span of time, and that not all the defendants were present simultaneously.
The prosecution also failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the police witnesses were able to identify the defendants as being in the area and among the people present at the time in question. Because the police officers incorrectly identified some individuals in one photo, it raises a reasonable doubt that they were able to recognize and identify every individual and to be certain that they saw each individual at the same place and at the same time.
The simple fact that the officers failed at one identification, raises sufficient doubt of the rest of their identifications.
The lawyers questioned said that there were other grounds for reasonable doubt, as well, and that under Singapore law, the accused should have been acquitted.
Feeds