Pritam Singh trial: Defence, deputy attorney-general clash over disclosing ex-WP cadre's unredacted messages

SINGAPORE: The defence in Pritam Singh's ongoing trial clashed with a deputy attorney-general on Monday (Oct 21) over making available a set of unredacted messages from a former Workers' Party (WP) cadre member, along with the reasons he gave to the Committee of Privileges (COP) for redacting those messages.

Mr Andre Jumabhoy, lead counsel for WP chief Singh, asked for the documents saying it went towards showing the credibility of the witness in question - former WP member Yudhishthra Nathan.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, however, argued that the test for the judge to order such disclosure of documents is for there to be a basis that the messages will go towards showing the guilt or innocence of the accused person.

This exchange lasted about half an hour from around 4pm on Monday, during the continuation of Mr Jumabhoy's cross-examination of Mr Nathan.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan then asked the prosecution to provide those documents to him so he could read through them before making a decision on Tuesday morning.

Mr Nathan was one of two then-WP cadre members who were in close contact with Ms Raeesah Khan. Ms Khan, a former WP MP for Sengkang GRC, had lied in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station.

The aftermath of her lie and how WP leaders, in particular Singh, dealt with it led to Singh being implicated as he is accused of lying to the COP about what he wanted Ms Khan to do in a certain period in 2021 - to tell the truth or maintain her lie.

The redacted messages in question are from a chat group Mr Nathan had with Ms Khan and Ms Loh Pei Ying. 

After Ms Khan admitted in parliament on Nov 1, 2021 to lying, a COP was convened to look into her conduct, and Ms Loh gave evidence to the COP about what she knew about the incident, along with Mr Nathan.

Both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan testified to the COP about hearing from Ms Khan that party leaders wanted her to maintain the lie up until Oct 12, 2021, when a decision was made to come clean.

This was after Law Minister K Shanmugam pressed Ms Khan in parliament on Oct 4, 2021 for further details on the police station incident. Ms Khan doubled down on her lie.

In a line of questioning on Monday afternoon, Mr Jumabhoy questioned Mr Nathan on redacted messages from a group chat he had with Ms Khan and Ms Loh, that he had presented to the COP.

NATHAN ADMITS DISCUSSING REDACTION WITH LOH, AGAINST COP’S INSTRUCTIONS

Mr Nathan admitted that he had discussed with Ms Loh which of their WhatsApp messages to redact after they testified before the COP, and that this breached the COP's instructions to them.

When court resumed after an afternoon break, Mr Jumabhoy doubled down on Mr Nathan's redaction of his Oct 12, 2021 message for Ms Khan to "not give too many details" which Mr Jumabhoy described as asking Ms Khan to continue lying.

Last week, Mr Nathan testified that he felt he could redact the message when he submitted evidence to the COP because it was "immaterial" to their investigation.

Ms Loh testified before the COP on Dec 2, 2021, and Mr Nathan testified on Dec 3, 2021. They were then asked to submit relevant WhatsApp conversations to the committee.

On Monday, Mr Jumabhoy said that Mr Nathan had “no basis” for the redaction, and that he knew the message was not immaterial to the COP's enquiry.

"The reality is the reason you redacted this message is it showed you in a bad light, isn't it?" Mr Jumabhoy asked. Mr Nathan said he could not agree with this completely.

When Mr Jumabhoy asked again if Mr Nathan "partially" agreed it showed him in a bad light, Mr Nathan said: "Yes, I would agree to that."

Mr Nathan elaborated when asked again later if the message made him look bad: “I would say that, to some degree, yes. But even at that point in time I felt that, in relative terms, my party leaders had already set the direction and I was fearful for the party. It was a very real fear and that was my state of mind at that point in time.”

Later, Mr Jumabhoy suggested to Mr Nathan that he did not want to disclose the message to the COP because he knew it would cast doubt on his credibility, and that he wanted to mislead the COP.

Mr Nathan disagreed with both statements, and they moved on to discuss how Mr Nathan redacted his messages.

Mr Nathan agreed that he had discussed which messages to redact, but said he could not remember when this discussion happened or whether it was over a phone call or via texts.

"I remember having a conversation with Ms Loh about just generally the redaction process. And also I remember conveying to her that I thought that private views expressed to Ms Khan after Oct 4 were immaterial," said Mr Nathan.

When Judge Tan asked what he meant by "private views", Mr Nathan clarified he meant "personal views privately expressed to Ms Khan on WhatsApp" from Oct 4 to Oct 12, 2021.

"So what are personal views not privately expressed?" The judge asked. 

"I guess that's what I thought of our WhatsApp messages at that point of time," said Mr Nathan.

Mr Jumabhoy then asked: "Ms Loh was explicitly warned not to discuss her evidence with anyone. You were aware of that, weren't you? And you were explicitly warned about that as well?"

Mr Nathan agreed to both questions.

"So again, parliament has told both of you, don't discuss. Correct?" the lawyer continued. "And you leave parliament and do exactly that, don't you?"

"I would say so, yes," said Mr Nathan.

"So you effectively ignored what parliament has told you not to do?” asked Mr Jumabhoy.

"At that point of time, yes," Mr Nathan said.

THE 30-MINUTE EXCHANGE BETWEEN DEFENCE AND PROSECUTION

As Mr Jumabhoy continued to press Mr Nathan about some redacted messages, the judge interjected to say he was not sure "what's the usefulness of this exercise". 

He asked Mr Jumabhoy if he had the sets of chats submitted, and Mr Jumabhoy said he did not, but that he wanted to make an application about that.

He agreed that he was laying the groundwork for him to make that application - to get the full set of unredacted messages from Mr Nathan's phone about the group chat, as well as his reasons for redacting certain messages he gave to the COP.

The defence had been given sets of similar documents in relation to Ms Loh, but not Mr Nathan. They are now seeking the unredacted messages from the chatgroup on Mr Nathan's phone between Oct 4 and Oct 12, 2021, as well as his reasons to the COP for redacting them.

That period is key because Oct 4, 2021, was when Mr Shanmugam questioned Ms Khan about her rape anecdote and she doubled down on her lie, and Oct 12, 2021 was when Singh met Ms Loh and Mr Nathan to discuss what to do regarding Ms Khan's lie. 

The meeting ended with them agreeing on having Ms Khan tell the truth, but it is disputed as to whether they went in all agreeing to have the truth told or not.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said the prosecution had seen the unredacted messages by Mr Nathan, which the police looked at in the course of their investigations.

Mr Ang said he had personally gone through the messages, and that some of them appear in the prosecution's bundle of documents.

"For example, that single message which my learned friend Mr Jumabhoy has been going on and on and on about, that single message you recall, about changing the age of the victim, that message was redacted in the documents which they (Ms Loh and Mr Nathan) submitted to the COP, but it's in our prosecution's bundle, unredacted," he said.

"I have gone through all the messages. They do not fall within our Kadar obligations. There's nothing in these messages which go in any way to the guilt or innocence of the accused person."

Kadar obligations refer to a duty for the prosecution to disclose certain material to the defence which falls under some criteria, including: Any unused material that is likely to be admissible and that is regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

After getting Mr Nathan to step out of the court, Mr Ang continued his submissions to the judge. He said it appeared to him that the defence was going to make a submission that the COP was not given a particular message that was so material that the COP was deprived of material evidence.

He said the only way for him to address that was to examine the COP report and said he may have to put in the COP report as part of the prosecution's exhibits if this was the case.

Judge Tan then said he was unsure what the relevance of the COP's findings was for the purposes of Singh's criminal trial.

"Well, whether the COP was deprived or not, in a strict sense, it's neither here nor there," he said.

"That's exactly my point," answered Mr Ang. "But I have not objected to the defence's questions. I agree with your view, your honour, that's why I've strictly not mentioned the COP's findings, or put in their report (in the prosecution's exhibits). But if it's the defence's case to put in the COP findings to say it's tainted or misled ... how do we tackle that without putting in the COP report?"

He continued: "I have been very conscious of not referring to the COP report or COP proceedings in terms of its findings, but it seems to be my learned friend who wants to do that."

In response, Mr Jumabhoy said his questioning suggests that there was a narrative Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were putting forth, that suggests they were operating under the WP leaders' instructions.

"That narrative, we say, has been clearly shown to be a lie," he said. "They're operating under whatever position they have adopted. They haven't spoken to party leaders, and you can see from the messages, that they are the ones telling Ms Khan to lie. So if the question is - why didn't she come clean from Oct 4 despite the visit from Mr Singh (a day before), it's pretty plain why ... her friends, her confidantes, are telling her - let's continue to lie. We should talk Mr Singh out of this view (to tell the truth). And that creates a better, in my submission, more accurate narrative as to what is going on."

The lawyer added that whether there is truth in this depends on what the messages say.

"We now know that in relation to what these two did, that despite being told not to discuss (evidence to the COP), they've disregarded that. They've gone on to align evidence, they've gone to remove, and with respect to Mr Nathan, a clearly unfathomable position, they've gone on to remove (messages)," said Mr Jumabhoy.

"It's a reasonable inquiry in terms of the disclosure as to whether these two witnesses are lying about their evidence, and that includes the messages they've made, and whether in relation to these two messages, there are other messages which may be relevant."

In response, Mr Ang said the critical issue in Singh's case is what happened on Aug 8, 2021, and what happened on Oct 3, 2021. 

"The evidence is relevant from what (the prosecution has) led so far, is on Aug 8, Ms Khan said she was told something by the leaders including Mr Singh. She sends, on that very day immediately after the meeting, a message to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. And then two days later, on Aug 10, even though it is the case run by the accused person at the COP that he had told her to tell her parents and then come back again, on Aug 10, Mr Singh doesn't tell this to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan to follow up on this with Ms Khan," said Mr Ang.

"And why are we calling Ms Loh and Mr Nathan in relation to that Oct 3 conversation? Because on Oct 12, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had a meeting with Mr Singh, where Mr Singh tells Ms Loh and Mr Nathan what he said to Ms Khan on Oct 3. So again it goes back to the crux of the charge. And I should add, your honour, that at the COP proceedings, Mr Singh's evidence to the COP, he accepts that he had a meeting on Oct 12 with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. He accepts that he discussed with them what happened on Oct 3, what he told Ms Khan, so that's why their evidence is relevant on these two issues. And not because everything, all their discussions between them with Ms Khan on Oct 4 onwards is somehow relevant. It must relate back to the matters in dispute in this case."

He emphasised that the messages the defence wants are post Oct 4, 2021, and the prosecution has disclosed to the defence anything they may have discussed which detail back to Aug 8, or Oct 3 in 2021, the dates stated in Singh's charges.

About Mr Nathan admitting to discussing his COP evidence with Ms Loh, Mr Ang said they did not return to the COP again thereafter to give any evidence. So even if Mr Nathan accepted that they had discussed evidence, "the evidence is over".

"Just as we had told Ms Loh - don't discuss your evidence with anyone, especially with the next witness that comes to this court, but after Mr Nathan gets off the stand, are we going to tell him - you cannot go home and discuss your evidence with anyone? Your evidence is over. So I don't understand my learned friend's point when he says they discussed evidence ... without pointing out that they had already completed their evidence," said Mr Ang.

Judge Tan then said: "Not quite. Because they had not quite provided the documents (containing their messages). It's not a case of it being released completely and that's the end of the matter."

Mr Ang agreed but said the fact Ms Loh and Ms Nathan discussed the evidence "is neither here nor there in a way".

"But if you discuss it to decide, among other things, deciding what goes before the COP, isn't that relevant?" asked the judge.

Mr Ang replied to say this has not been established yet.

The judge then asked the defence to clarify if they wanted to put in the COP report findings, saying he felt it is "really not relevant to this trial".

Mr Jumabhoy said this was why he objected to the COP report being put in "in the first place", as the conclusions the COP came to are irrelevant, but the evidence put before the COP is relevant.

He argued that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had "chosen to manipulate" the evidence they gave to the COP, and this conduct is "directly relevant to the evidence that they give now". 

The discussion turned to how both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had made some redactions to their messages while unsupervised by the COP.

"So what we have is witnesses applying their own assessments, value judgments, whatever you call it, made some redactions," said the judge. "It doesn't appear there was some third-party scrutiny as to the contents of the redactions. We have one example of Ms Loh then putting forward a reason that turns out to be not accurate. We don't know about Mr Nathan."

Mr Ang then said that the defence "simply wants some documents from us (the prosecution) not as to the guilt or innocence of the accused".

"He wants your honour to make a finding that Mr Nathan gave false evidence to the COP when he redacted (the messages). It is, to me, very clear, with all due respect to my learned friend, (he is) asking your honour to go into the integrity of the COP findings," he said.

"I can tell your honour, I've looked at it (Mr Nathan's redacted message in question). The reason he gives is ... his reason is unrelated. But nonetheless if my learned friend doesn't agree I will produce it," said Mr Ang. 

He added that Kadar obligations are "not meant for the defence to get documents" or unused evidence from the prosecution "just dealing with credit or credibility".

"It must go to the guilt of the accused person, that is why we say the threshold has not been crossed," he said.

In response, Mr Jumabhoy said the guilt and innocence of the accused is decided listening to what witnesses have to say.

"If your honour finds they are credible witnesses, they have no reason to lie, that would go towards the guilt of the accused. Evidence that undermines this witness' credibility would directly go towards the guilt of the accused," he said. "We think, in the circumstances, there is a clear basis for these messages, the redacted and unredacted, to be disclosed."

The judge then told the defence that the point Mr Ang was making was that it was not relevant to current court proceedings "in a very broad sense" whether the witnesses lied to the COP or not after Oct 4, 2021.

"But the lie doesn't exist in a vacuum," answered Mr Jumabhoy. "It's not as if they've come along and departed from their COP evidence. They've come along to maintain their COP evidence. So the evidence ... is very much an issue."

The judge then said there was a process to deal with when disputes of such sort come up. In the process, the court is to examine the documents in question, before taking a view on whether the prosecution has breached its Kadar obligations of disclosure.

Mr Ang said the prosecution has the documents and can hand them to the judge, but would need time to prepare them.

Judge Tan then said that the issue of Ms Loh's and Mr Nathan's credibility, especially leading up to Oct 12, 2021 and even on that day itself, "is an issue", because it goes to whether their evidence is to believed or not.

The court then stood down the trial for the prosecution to prepare the documents for the judge to look at. The trial will resume on Tuesday morning at 11am.

After this, Mr Jumabhoy estimated he would take about an hour to finish his cross-examination of Mr Nathan.

Following this, the prosecution is allowed to re-examine Mr Nathan on any questions that came up during the defence's cross-examination.

LOW THIA KHIANG'S BRIEF ENTRY TO COURT

After Mr Nathan, the next prosecution witness expected to testify is Mr Low Thia Khiang, former WP chief.

Evidence in court so far suggests that he had told Mr Singh to get Ms Khan to tell the truth "as soon as possible", and that this advice assuaged Ms Loh's and Mr Nathan's feelings and got them to get completely on board with having Ms Khan tell the truth.

Mr Low had arrived at the State Courts at about 1pm during the lunch break to stand by to testify. He smiled at the media who photographed him, but later left at about 4pm.

Reporters approached him outside the court building. When someone wished him "all the best", he replied that he could not hear them, before thanking the person after a clarification.

Another person asked him what he thought about Monday's proceedings. Mr Low shrugged and said: "I don't know, I have not gone into the court."

Witnesses usually wait in a holding room for their turn to testify. They are not allowed to sit in while testimony by other witnesses is ongoing.

Mr Low declined comment on the case and eventually left in a car.