SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF COPYING
Chief Justice Menon agreed with the prosecution that a reasonable suspicion arose given the extent and manner in which trial judge’s decision had copied the defence’s written submissions.
He said it was “indisputable” that significant sections of Judge Soh’s grounds of decision were copied, even in reasoning, structure and stylistic choices.
He found that the judge appeared to have reproduced the submissions as his own analysis.
Chief Justice Menon set out such examples in his judgment where Judge Soh had even adopted the defence’s adversarial expression.
“Such a tone and choice of expression, even if some might view it as excessively subjective, might not be remarkable in a party’s advocacy for its position,” said Chief Justice Menon.
“But in a judicial decision, where findings are made and expressed, there is an expectation that the court will carefully weigh its choice of words, conscious of their adverse, even dire, effects.”
Judge Soh had also suggested dishonesty on the part of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) officers who had recorded Pay and Pek’s statements, noted the Chief Justice.
“It is no small thing for a judge to make findings against the CPIB officers in the terms that the district judge did, which could not only have consequences on the officers themselves, but also occasion public disquiet against the CPIB,” Chief Justice Menon said.
While the judge was entitled to make such a finding, this had to be justified upon examination of the relevant evidence and explanations. However, this was not done in the present case, said the chief justice.
