A cross examination, followed by powerful written submissions, which left the Prosecution’s case with no legs to stand on, so much so that no Defence had to be called – That is essentially how Trident Law Corporation, led by the tenacious head of its Criminal Law department, Mr Thangavelu, and assisted by Senior Associate, Ms Tanaya Kinjavdekar, secured acquittals on 6 Charges.

Briefly, our client, the director of a logistics company (the “Company”), faced 6 Charges for “keeping” and/or “permitting” the use of a Motorcycle, despite the cancellation of its registration, when its vehicle license was not in force, and without proper insurance coverage.

During trial, our Mr Thangavelu’s fierce cross-examination led to one of the Prosecution witnesses, an employee at our client’s company, testifying that our client:

  1. Had instructed her to scrap the Motorcycle before the deadline imposed for doing so; and
  2. That our client believed that the Motorcycle was at the workshop for scrapping.

Given the Prosecution witnesses’ admissions, the Trident Law Corporation team made the bold submission at the close of the Prosecution’s case – that there was No Case to Answer.

For context, an application for No Case to Answer is made at the close of the Prosecution’s case, if the evidence put forward does not cover every constituent element of the offences in question. The evidence adduced through the Prosecution witnesses at this stage is typically accepted as true, unless it is so inherently incredible that no reasonable person would be able to accept it as being true or if it has been discredited or shown to be wholly unreliable.

Such applications rarely succeed due to the high thresholds required to be met, especially so where the offences in question are strict liability offences (i.e. the Prosecution does not need to prove the mental element of a person’s intention or knowledge of committing a crime).

Nevertheless, the Trident team beat the odds! After extensive written submissions and oral submissions made in Court, it was found that, whether directly or indirectly (being a director of the Company), it could not be said that our client had “kept” or “permitted” the use of the Motorcycle. The Court agreed with Trident Law Corporation’s submissions that there were gaps in the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, which the Defence did not bear the burden of filling.

A discharge amounting to an acquittal was thus ordered in favour of our client for all 6 Charges!

Our client had come to Trident Law Corporation, despite several lawyers advising him against pursuing the case. As No Ordinary Lawyers, we, at Trident Law Corporation, did not back down from the challenge and are proud of this No Ordinary Outcome! We thank him for trusting us with his case!