Singapore judge chides lawyer for convoluted mitigation filled with grammatical errors

A judge chided a criminal lawyer for the poor quality of a written mitigation plea the latter submitted to the court on behalf of a client who admitted to a cheating charge.

In a judgment dated Nov 11, District Judge Lim Tse Haw said he told Mr A. Revi Shanker that his mitigation was “so convoluted and verbose” and filled with grammatical errors that he had difficulty understanding what the lawyer was trying to submit.

The judge added: “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner. This would save much valuable judicial time in reading and understanding the submissions.”

In order to understand the mitigation, he asked Mr Shanker to make an oral presentation in court.

Mr Shanker’s client Jeremy Francis Cruez was sentenced to six months’ jail in October. The 60-year-old Sri Lankan national had admitted to cheating his former employer, Major’s Pest Management Services. The prosecution had asked for a jail term of between 14 and 16 months, while Mr Shanker asked for a fine.

Both sides appealed against the sentence, but court records show that Cruez has since discontinued his appeal.

As a fumigation manager, Cruez was responsible for obtaining the supplies for fumigation works.

Between April 13, 2017, and Oct 22, 2019, he submitted fake or forged invoices to Major’s for fumigation-related supplies from six suppliers, seeking a total of $190,455.60. The amount was to be paid in cash.

Cruez had in fact bought the supplies from other sources and marked up the prices in the fake or forged invoices by 5 per cent. He had intended to pocket the difference.

When he was questioned by the company’s managing director why the suppliers required cash payment, he explained that they had been paid in cash under Major’s previous managing director.

He provided e-mails from the suppliers who purportedly requested payment in cash or for the cheque to be made out to a person called Myrna, who was stated to be an “executive in charge of accounts” in the e-mails. However, Myrna was his close friend who was working as a domestic helper.

Believing the ruse, the company disbursed $190,455.60 as payment for the supplies to either Cruez or Myrna.

In the judgment, District Judge Lim highlighted the first paragraph of Mr Shanker’s mitigation, which comprised a single sentence of 176 words.

In the paragraph, among many other points, Mr Shanker said his client had to “live at the mercy of friends and relatives whose assistance is only, not unexpectedly, thinning away such that his queues for food (breakfast, lunch and dinner) on a daily basis at religious place of worship and other organisations have become more frequent”.

The judge said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that the lawyer himself had drafted the mitigation.

To avoid any misunderstanding of the mitigation, the judge at a hearing on Oct 22, 2024, asked the lawyer to summarise orally what he was trying to submit.

Mr Shanker said during the hearing that Cruez was not qualifying his plea of guilt. He added that his client had offered to make full restitution to Major’s of the sum of $12,953.73, which was Cruez’s personal gains from the offence. But the offer was declined by the pest control company.

While rejecting the defence’s submission for a fine, District Judge Lim said the prosecution’s submission for 14 to 16 months’ jail was manifestly excessive.

“Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of $190,455.60 and left the company in the lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months’ imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate,” he added.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Proposed changes to traffic rules send the wrong signal to road users: Forum Scam-related claims rise 63%, more than a third of all claims: Singapore’s dispute resolution body