The direction to Account-General for payment out: Here
The file attached to my email dated Mar 11, 2013: Att_20120310
From: SUPCOURT Registry
(SUPCOURT) <SUPCOURT_Registry@supcourt.gov.sg>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013 12:50 pm
To: medp1128@gmail.com
Cc: ISTANA Feedback (ISTANA) <ISTANA_Feedback@istana.gov.sg>
Subject: RE: Request to the President: Professionalism in the Court
Attention : Mr Yan Jun
DCA
20/2011 – Yan Jun v. Liu Tian
Dear Sir,
We refer to your email
dated 13 March 2013 addressed to His Excellency, the President of Singapore.
2. In respect
of the refund of the security deposit, please file your Direction to the
Accountant-General for Payment Out with the Supreme Court Registry. Upon
acceptance of the filing, you may then approach the Accountant-General for
payment out of the security deposit.
3. As for the
rest of your email, we have responded to you in our earlier reply of 13 March
2013. We re-iterate that as we have responded to these other matters
repeatedly, we will not be engaging in any further correspondence on the same.
Thank you.
Lee Gek Boon
For Registrar
Supreme Court, Singapore
cc : President’s Office, Istana
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March, 2013 4:29 PM
To: Kok Fatt LEE (ISTANA)
Cc: SUPCOURT Registry
(SUPCOURT); AGC (AGC); aware@aware.org.sg; organising@wp.sg; stonline@sph.com.sg; tnp@sph.com.sg; wanbao@sph.com.sg; Connie CHAN (PMO)
Subject: Re: Request to the President: Professionalism in the Court
Dear Mr. President,
1. Thank
you very much for your attention to my email regarding the professionalism in
the Court.
2. I
have received the response and am disappointed about it because my complaint
hasn’t been handled by an agency independent of the High Court.
3. Every
appellant is entitled to a fair trial. In the response, the High Court has
justified that, based on the absence of legal representation, His Honour got
the power to turn an appeal into a “dialogue to ascertain both parties’
respective positions with regard to appeal”. However, the law doesn’t require
the representation by lawyers in a suit.
4. The
response failed to justify how His Honour got the power to, against my will,
prevent me from accepting the option he offered to send DCA 20/2011 back to
lower court. My security was detained so technically I lost the appeal.
5. The
High Court claimed that I alleged against His Honour but, upon my request,
hasn’t specified these allegations and proves them spurious. Now the Court has
refused to engage any further correspondence with me.
6. I
will forward my reply to the Private Secretary to Prime Minister.
7. I
will continue voicing my opinion to protect my rights to a fair trial to the
international press if local news agencies are not interested.
8. Thanks
again for your attention and patience.
Regards,
Yan Jun
On Wed, Mar
13, 2013 at 12:34 PM, SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT) <SUPCOURT_Registry@supcourt.gov.sg> wrote:
Attention : Mr Yan Jun
DCA
20/2011 – Yan Jun v. Liu Tian
Dear Sir,
We refer to your email dated 7 March 2013.
2.
The Registry has responded to you repeatedly since 23 July 2012 on the issues
you have raised in respect of the hearing of DCA 20/2011. Please let us
reiterate the position. When you first appeared for the DCA hearing before the
Honourable Justice Chao Hick Tin, who upon seeing that both you and your
estranged wife were unrepresented, engaged both of you to ascertain your respective
positions at the conclusion of which both of you clearly and readily agreed to
the course suggested by the Judge, which is, to withdraw the appeal on a
certain express understanding. Both you and your estranged wife had also
indicated to the Judge that you would be proceeding to divorce. The audio
recording of the hearing bears this out.
3.
You should therefore appreciate our position that we are unable to consider
your request for re-opening of your case without a formal application filed in
accordance with the applicable rules and procedures and that the transcripts of
the hearing would be available upon request and payment of the prescribed fees.
4
We regret to inform that unless there are new issues raised in your email, we will
not be engaging in any further correspondence with you. Thank you for your
understanding.
Lee Gek Boon
For
Registrar
Supreme Court, Singapore
cc : President’s Office, Istana
On Mon, Mar
11, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Yan Jun <medp1128@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. President,
1. I
would like to request the President for your attention to professionalism in
the Court. I also request the President to urge the High Court to explain in
public how an Honorable Judge got power to influence an appellant’s decision
making during an appeal.
2. My
appeal DCA 20/2011 was heard on 1 Feb 2012 before Honourable Judge Chao Hick
Tin. His Honour persuaded me to withdraw the appeal when I clearly accepted the
option to send the case back to lower court. Finally, I withdrew the appeal
under the influence of His Honour during the appeal. My security deposit was
detained.
3. On
22 June 2012, I expressed my concern to the High Curt about the due process of
DCA 20/2011 and was informed on 27 June to apply for “Note of Evidence” I.
On 16 Aug I was informed that “no notes of evidence are available for this
matter” II .
4. On
12 July His Honour classified DCA 20/2011 as “an interactive dialogue (as both
of you were unrepresented) to ascertain the parties' respective positions with
regard to the appeal” III, so DCA 20/2011 was
technically not an appeal. On 23 July the appeal was classified as “a
proceeding other than trial” because the court advised me to apply for
“transcript for proceedings other than trial” IV. In
addition, “both parties agreed to take the course suggested by the Judge” V .
5. A
dialogue and a proceeding are different in nature, so these replies gave me an
impression that the nature of an appeal is determined not by law but by an
Honourable hearing Judge. I also doubt if a Judge is allowed to suggest the
parties.
6. Rules of Court 55D specifies that an appeal to the High Court
from the Subordinate Courts shall be by way of rehearing, so an appeal is a
trial by default and every appellant is entitled to a fair trial. I don’t think
His Honour was able to deny me my rights for a fair trial and replaced it with
the opposite. It is self-evident that I am not in a position to apply for “transcript for
proceedings other than trials”.
7. If
the High Court holds that an appellant is not entitled to a fair trial and an
Honorable hearing Judge is allowed to influence an appellant’s or his counsel’s
decision-making, I would appreciate it if the High Court lists several
examples. His Honor is the only person in the position to justify the absence
of a fair trial for DCA 20/2011; however, all my requests in this regard have
been ignored.
8. On
16 November 2012, Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) replied to my complaint as:
“the Attorney-General’s Chambers is not in a position to assist you. In this
regard, we note that you have also addressed your email to the Family Court
Registry. “
9. In
reply dated 3 March, the court “(without formal application) is unable to
consider the request for your case to be re-opened after your withdrawal “ VI.
However, my withdrawal is a result of His Honour’s persuasion during the
appeal, which was not supposed to take place. In addition, this time the court
used “re-open” instead of “re-trial” that they repeatedly used in
January, suggesting that the court then considered DCA 20/2011 to be a trial VII.
10. In
the same reply, the High Court stated that “you have raised certain allegations
against the Honourable Judge who heard the matter in DCA 20/2011, which are
without basis” VIII. I would like the High Court to
specify my allegations, if any, and justify why they are spurious.
11. DCA
20/2011 is simple but of public interest in that it challenges a wide-spread
concept in family law. If this concept is proven wrong, all the maintenance
orders made in the past for the wife during their marriages may be called into
question. Please see an online essay for
details.
12. Without
getting their consent, I forward this letter to AGC, Association of Women for
Action and Research and Worker’s Party not for assistance but simply to show
that I have made a request to the President.
13. I
am happy to be interviewed by the Press and will continue voicing my opinion to
protect my rights to fair trial.
14. I
thank the President for his attention to this matter. I am looking forward to
hearing from the President at his earliest convenience.
Regards,
Yan Jun
Notes :
I. Attachment,
Page 4, Paragraph 3
II. Page 5,
Para 2.
III. Page 1, Para 2
IV. Page
2, Para 3 and Page 3
V. Page 2,
Para 2
VI. Page
6, Para 2
VII. Page
9, Para 2
VIII. Page
6, Para 3
没有评论:
发表评论
注意：只有此博客的成员才能发布评论。