and we explore solutions. Most of the time we go through fixed processes and arrive at solutions which the client can accept. In that sense, a major feature would be the management of expectations. Diana: I climb up and down the stairs of the State Courts and shuffle between Courts to handle our matters on a (almost) daily basis. When I am not in Court, I will usually be back in the office to meet prospective clients or speaking to existing clients to keep our clients updated of what is going on with their matters. A significant portion of my time is therefore spent on client management. Apart from Court work and client management, there would of course be the actual getting up to do for our cases which typically involve drafting of letters of representations to the Prosecution, research, drafting of submissions and mitigation pleas etc.. The first thing we do when we take on a case is to get detailed instructions from our client before advising our client. We will attend Court (if the client has been charged) and we will adjourn the matter in Court so that we can convene meeting(s) with the Prosecution to discuss the evidence and sentence in each case. A lot of what we advise our client depends on what is shared at the meeting(s) with the Prosecution i.e. about the nature, strength and type of evidence the Prosecution has against our client. A lot of negotiations take place between the Prosecution and Defence at the pre-trial stage to see whether the matter can be resolved amicably without the need for a trial. If however, the matter cannot, then the matter goes for trial. Trial will then involve days of cross-examining witnesses in Court and the number of days of trial will depend on how many witnesses there are and how complex the case is. What made you decide to specialise in criminal law? Sunil: Romantic and idealistic notions of Justice… But in truth, it was my late uncle’s example of fighting for the underdog. That was inspiring. And I think our justice system always needs good people to step forward to defend underdogs. Diana: I’ve always thought (and still do) that people are born good and that no one is inherently evil. People therefore find themselves committing offences because of reason(s) that stem from deep-seated issues that are usually beyond their control. I have been told I am idealistic and naïve though. I decided to specialise in criminal law, and specifically in criminal defence work because I wanted to be the voice for these accused persons to help tell their side of the story – things are not always black and white. It’s not about changing the world, but about changing someone’s life (hopefully for the better), one at a time. What are the key moments in your experience of practising criminal law? Is there a particular encounter that has left a lasting impact on you? 116
Sunil: Losing my first capital case after I was called. It was Took Leng How’s (“Took”) case and I was third chair. Took was convicted of murdering a young girl. He was sentenced to death in the High Court and on appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision to convict him 2 to 1. Singapore had the mandatory death penalty for offences under Section 300(c) at the material time. If the Court had the power to exercise its discretion (as it does now), I remain confident that they would not have opted to hang this man with an IQ of 72 (or thereabouts). The dissenting judgement in the CA was penned by Justice Kan Ting Chiu. Justice Kan (rightly in my opinion) found that there remained doubts over the cause of death of the victim. For me, the most telling thing was that Took did manage to escape to Malaysia but opted to return to Singapore because his father told him to return if he did not do it. Why return to Singapore to face a capital charge unless you honestly felt that you were not guilty. That loss still grates and perhaps that was when I truly moderated my expectation of the meaning of the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Diana: I remember one particular accused person – one of the first few accused persons that I had gone to visit at Changi Prisons because he was in remand. This was when I had just started out as a trainee. The accused was a young boy who had killed his brother during an incident when his brother became violent towards the accused because the brother’s psychiatric condition had acted up. The accused therefore pinned his brother down on the floor and had used excessive force on the brother and caused his brother’s death. The accused had called the police for help before resorting to using force on his brother. When I saw the accused in remand together with Sunil, I still remember how reserved and withdrawn the accused was – he was always looking down and avoided eye contact. I could feel how sorry he was for causing the death of his own brother. I remember almost tearing up before Sunil told me to leave the room. That was a very emotional moment for me. I am glad that the Prosecution and the Court recognised the very unique and unfortunate circumstances the offence and eventually, the accused was ordered to undergo probation. We understand that you are the acting President of the ACLS. What is it that the ACLS does and how does that aid or impact the legal system and industry? (To Sunil) Sunil: The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (“ACLS”) was set up in a time where many in the criminal bar felt the Law Society was not doing enough for the criminal bar. Further, the ACLS is not a creature of statute and there is no impediment to it commenting on changes in the law or existing legislation. Things are quite different now. The Law Society’s Criminal