Pritam Singh trial: Judge rejects defence’s application for ex-WP cadre’s unredacted messages

SINGAPORE: The defence in Pritam Singh’s ongoing trial failed to obtain a set of unredacted messages from a former Workers’ Party (WP) cadre on Wednesday (Oct 23).
The messages are from a chat group that Mr Yudhishthra Nathan had with former WP Member of Parliament Ms Raeesah Khan and fellow former WP cadre Ms Loh Pei Ying.
All three are prosecution witnesses in Singh’s trial for allegedly lying to a Committee of Privileges (COP) about whether he wanted Ms Khan to come clean about a false anecdote she told in parliament.
Singh’s lead counsel Mr Andre Jumabhoy had asked for the messages on Monday, arguing that it went towards showing the credibility of Mr Nathan, who is testifying, and whether he and Ms Loh aligned their evidence.
Aside from the unredacted messages, Mr Jumabhoy also asked for the redacted messages that Mr Nathan submitted to the COP and the reasons he gave for the redactions.
The defence had been given sets of similar documents in relation to Ms Loh, who was Ms Khan’s secretarial assistant, but not Mr Nathan.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, however, argued that the defence’s application did not cross the threshold for the prosecution to disclose the messages.
He said the test for the judge to order such disclosure is for there to be a basis that the messages will go towards showing the guilt or innocence of the accused person.
Mr Ang argued that the messages in question were sent post Oct 4, 2021, and that the prosecution has disclosed to the defence anything the trio may have discussed that relates back to Aug 8 or Oct 3, 2021 – the dates in Singh’s charges.
On Wednesday, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan recounted the Kadar disclosure obligations on which the application is based.
Kadar obligations refer to a duty for the prosecution to disclose certain material to the defence that 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.
Judge Tan said that after careful examination of the redacted and unredacted messages, he was satisfied that none of them met this criteria, and that there was no basis in law to order the disclosure.
He also addressed the defence’s argument that the messages went towards the credibility of the witnesses, in particular differences between their evidence to the COP and their evidence in court.
Ms Loh testified before the COP on Dec 2, 2021, and Mr Nathan testified on Dec 3, 2021. They were asked to submit relevant messages to the committee after giving their testimony.
Judge Tan noted that as the redacted messages were only submitted to the COP afterwards, the documents were not available to the committee during Mr Nathan and Ms Loh’s oral testimony.
He said that the exercise of comparing the witness’ answers before the COP and in court would therefore not be “adversely affected” by the defence not having the documents.
He added that while there was “no doubt that the credibility of Mr Nathan is in issue, as is the case for all witnesses”, the messages the defence sought did not meet the criteria for disclosure.
In his decision, the judge also stressed that the court was not concerned with and not in a position to comment on the COP’s conclusions and the evidence that was put before the COP.
He pointed out that the COP was a body that operated under different conditions and with different terms of reference and objectives from the court in the present trial.
“In any event, I note that both the prosecution and defence have accepted it’s not the mandate, nor is this court equipped, to form an opinion or render any view on the COP’s findings, and this court respectfully declines to do so.”
During Mr Nathan’s earlier testimony, it emerged that he and Ms Loh had discussed which of their messages to redact after they gave their testimony to the COP.
Mr Nathan also admitted that this breached the COP’s instructions to them.
The COP was investigating Ms Khan’s conduct after she lied in parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where the woman was purportedly questioned about her attire and the fact that she had been drinking.
One of the messages that Mr Nathan redacted was a message he sent on Oct 12, 2021 stating: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts (about) her age accurate.”
Ms Loh previously admitted on the stand that she had also redacted this message from her version of messages submitted to the COP, and that she had lied about the reason why.
This message was disclosed by the prosecution for the trial, and Mr Jumabhoy described it as Mr Nathan asking Ms Khan to continue lying about the purported rape victim.
In his decision on Wednesday, Judge Tan noted that apart from the Oct 12, 2021 message, which had already been disclosed, the other messages did not undermine the prosecution’s case nor strengthen the defence’s case.
Mr Jumabhoy resumed his cross-examination of Mr Nathan after the judge made his decision.
Under questioning, Mr Nathan said that he had met Ms Loh, Ms Khan and Mr Mike Lim – Ms Khan’s legislative assistant, also known as Mr Lim Hang Ling – for dinner on Dec 1, 2021.
This was one day before Ms Khan, Ms Loh and Mr Lim testified before the COP.
Mr Nathan agreed that at this dinner, he and Ms Loh discussed “to some extent” the evidence that Ms Khan would give to the COP.
He recalled that during the evening, Mr Lim received a call from Singh.
According to Mr Nathan, before Mr Lim took the call, Ms Loh told him: “Please tell Pritam that I’ve been called to the COP and I’m not going to lie to save the party.”
Mr Nathan said he believed Mr Lim conveyed this to Singh, and that Singh’s response was to ask Mr Lim to tell Ms Loh to “tell the truth” to the COP.
Mr Nathan added that he was surprised by this response.
Mr Jumabhoy then moved on to a message Ms Loh sent on Dec 22, 2021, where she told Mr Lim “when you talk to him be careful …  because I think from now on he will record everything”.
It was not clear from the lawyer’s question who “he” was.
Mr Jumabhoy asked Mr Nathan about the message he sent after this, which read: “Just to protect yourself.”
“What were you seeking to protect yourself from?” the lawyer asked.
Mr Nathan said: “I guess it’s because, um, just in case Mr Singh would try to use that information against him?”
Mr Jumabhoy then put it directly to Mr Nathan that he had been aligning his facts with Ms Loh from the time of the COP, that they had checked with each other which messages to redact or submit to the COP, and continued to make their answers “stack up” after they were questioned by the committee.
Mr Nathan disagreed with all of Mr Jumabhoy’s points.
Former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang took the stand after Mr Nathan, as the fourth witness for the prosecution.