Lawyer of alleged hacker James Raj files court application for access to client

Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011. The views expressed here are his own.

Lawyer M Ravi has filed a court application on the matter of the constitutional right of access to counsel, on behalf of his client, James Raj Arokiasamy.

James Raj, 35, is alleged to be the person behind “The Messiah”, who is being charged with making “an unauthorised modification” of the contents of the Ang Mo Kio Town Council website on 28 October 2013.

He was arrested in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 4 November, and charged in Singapore on 12 November under the Computer Misuse Act and Cyber Security Act.

Together with the hacking charge, he was also charged on 5 November with 3 counts of the offence of Consumption of Controlled Drugs under Section 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The court had granted a one week remand then for the police to conduct further investigations.

Ravi’s application today – Wednesday, 13 November - is asking the court to adjudicate on the “Fundamental Liberties” guaranteed under Article 9 (3) of the Singapore Constitution which says:

“Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.”

The application is seeking a declaration from the court that under Article 9 (3), there is an immediate right to counsel upon the request of a person remanded for investigations.

It also asks the court to grant Ravi immediate access to James Raj.

In the application, Ravi related how he was contacted by James Raj through an acquaintance on 11 November.

Despite several requests to the police, including the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), on the same day and immediately upon being asked to represent James Raj, Ravi was denied access to his client.

On 12 November, at the hearing where James Raj was being charged, Ravi had asked the court for permission to speak to his client for a few minutes.

However, the prosecution made two applications to the court, namely:

1. That James Raj be denied access to third parties, including in court
2. That James Raj be remanded at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH)

Ravi protested the prosecution’s application on the grounds that his client’s constitutional rights under Article 9 (3) were being ignored.

“I emphasised to the court that the prosecution’s application to deny me access in court is a further violation of Article 9 (3) of the Constitution which clearly spells out [the] right to immediate access to counsel,” Ravi’s application today said.

"Counsels should be given access to accused persons at least 48 hours after arrest and I submitted that 48 hours should be treated as a reasonable period to access to accused persons. To this extent, it is my understanding that this is the current position which was borne out of discussions between the Criminal Bar and the Attorney-General's Chambers."

Ravi had also told the court that “it is a grave concern that the accused person’s statements are taken whilst the applicant’s mental state is called into question and to make matters worse, he is being charged in court”.

“I should have thought that the police ought to have desisted from recording a statement from the applicant if his mental state is called into question,” Ravi said.

“Hence the applicant’s right to counsel becomes even more crucial given his vulnerability at police custody.”

In addition, Ravi’s court application said, James Raj has also raised the issue of his being assaulted while in police custody. This, Ravi said, adds to the urgency of his client being given access to counsel.

James Raj was reported by the Straits Times, on 13 November, to have told the court, "Everything is quite biased against me at the moment... I would feel quite comfortable if I could speak to my lawyer."

The hearing into the application is expected to be on Monday.

In the meantime, the court on Tuesday ordered James Raj to be remanded at the IMH for psychiatric evaluation. It has also granted the prosecution’s application to deny third parties access to James Raj – till 26 November when the case will be heard again.