”Īddressing the factors considered by the Prosecution, Mr Shanmugam said, “In assessing the charges to proceed on and to take into consideration in a plea of guilt, factors which are generally taken into account by the AGC include the strength of the Prosecution’s case, the accused person’s level of co-operation with the investigation authorities and any relevant personal mitigating circumstances.” “It was the AGC which decided to prefer charges against Mr Karl in the first place, and they carefully considered the facts. He also clarified that the Attorney-General had recused himself from the case. He added that the charge was in fact taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. “It gives the impression that the charge was not before the Court or was otherwise withdrawn, ” The Minister clarified that the statement that the Prosecution did not press charges under section 177 of the Penal Code against Mr Karl is inaccurate. Mr Shanmugam emphasized that the case was dealt with in a standard manner and that there was nothing exceptional about it. S193 carries a maximum imprisonment term of seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine while s182 carries a prescribed penalty of imprisonment, which may extend to one year, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. “The other charge against him under section 177 of the Penal Code for giving false information to the Police was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.” Karl eventually pleaded guilty in March 2023 to an amended charge under section 182 of the Penal Code for giving a false statement in Court (instead of under section 193 of the Penal Code).” “These charges were for furnishing false information to the Police and giving false evidence in judicial proceedings, respectively. Mr Shanmugam stated, “In November 2020, the Prosecution preferred two charges against Karl under sections 177 and 193 of the Penal Code.” Ms Poa had asked for the reasons for not pressing charges against Karl under section 177 of the Penal Code for furnishing false information to a public servant and section 193 of the Penal Code for giving false evidence, as announced by the Police on 4 November 2020 and whether he will ask the Attorney-General to make the reasons public. On 14 April, Karl was sentenced to two weeks of imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code for having told DJ Low that two pieces of clothing (a cream polo ladies t-shirt and a red blouse) belonged to him when he knew that information was false. This was said by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, in response to a parliamentary question filed by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Ms Hazel Poa, over concerns regarding the charges against Karl Liew Kai Lung, son of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong, in the case of migrant domestic worker Parti Liyani. “This is regularly done in fact, it is the norm in cases involving a plea of guilt.” “It is normal for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to proceed on amended charges”, as well as to take other charges into consideration for the purposes of sentencing when an individual elects to plead guilty.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |