Criminal Defence Lawyers who have been at the forefront of several landmark judgments in Singapore
Criminal lawyers who have successfully handled lengthy and complicated criminal trials in Singapore
Criminal defence specialists with substantial experience in multi-jurisdictional criminal investigations relating to allegations of white-collar crimes including corruption, corporate fraud, AML and tax evasion
Criminal defence team led by 2 heavyweight criminal practitioners with over 55 years of combined legal experience
Our exceptional criminal defence team is well known for its devotion. Devotion to details. Devotion to our clients’ causes. Devotion to securing the best outcome for our clients. Led by 2 top criminal defence lawyers, Trident Law’s criminal defence team is well respected for having been at the forefront of several landmark judgments and several “firsts” in Singapore’s legal history. We have handled complicated and complex criminal trials that stretched to almost 100 days in court.
Trident’s criminal lawyers have the depth of experience in assisting you across the myriad aspects of the criminal defence landscape including:
Prevention of Corruption Act
Misuse of Drugs Act
Prevention of Human Trafficking Act
Road Traffic Act
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (CDSA)
Securities & Futures Act
Our criminal law specialists are also regularly engaged to advice clients on international corruption and bribery offences criminalized by:
Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention)
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
Criminal Trials and Appeals
Trident Law has deep experience in conducting trials in both the State Courts and the High Court and criminal appeals in the Supreme Court. Over the years, our lawyers have been involved in several landmark decisions of the Courts. With one of the biggest criminal defence departments in Singapore, Trident Law has both the capacity and capability to handle complicated and complex matters. Read on to see how we tackled some of the matters entrusted to us.
Commercial Sex with Minor – Going through the Minor Details
Thiru took over the conduct of this matter which was headed for a criminal trial from another law firm. Our client had been charged with having commercial sex with a minor. Despite representations made by our client’s previous lawyers, the Prosecution did not agree to a withdrawal of the charge. Thiru combed through the disclosed evidence and after challenging our client on his account of the matter, came to the clear conclusion that there were more questions than answers in the Prosecution’s position. We engaged the Prosecution on these very valid questions. Within four months of having taken over the matter, the Prosecution dropped the charge against our client.
Culpable Homicide – “Eyewitnesses vs The Laws of Physics”
Our client, a general manager of a high-end KTV establishment, was charged with causing the death of a video jockey who worked in the same KTV. The case against our client was that he had kicked the deceased out of a bus which was travelling along the CTE.
The driver of the bus testified that our client had intentionally kicked the deceased out of the moving bus. Our client, who was heavily intoxicated at that time, had no clear recollection of what transpired but was adamant that he had not kicked the deceased.
Having very little to work on, Thiru did a comprehensive study of the evidence tendered by the Prosecution and did several modelling of scene reconstructions based on the objective evidence.
The needle in the haystack was found when Thiru examined the shoes of the deceased. The pattern of scuff marks on the soles of the deceased’s shoes appeared to Thiru to not be consistent with the Prosecution’s case theory or the evidence of the bus driver. Thiru’s assessment of the evidence was validated by 2 forensic experts from the United Kingdom who testified on our client’s behalf.
At trial, scene reconstruction and the scientific evidence were rigorously contested. However, our appreciation of the evidence and the game plan to prove our client’s innocence resulted in our client’s complete acquittal.
A Careless Response to a Murder Allegation – “If it’s there, it’s there”
“If it’s there, it’s there” – that was the careless response (in Malay) of Ismil Bin Kadar to a senior and experienced CID officer who was questioning him in connection with the brutal murder of an old lady. This response led to a chain of “confessions” being recorded from Ismil. All in, there were 13 “confessions” by Ismil to say that he had murdered the deceased in her flat.
The problem? When we met with Ismil in remand, not only did he deny killing the deceased, he denied ever going to the deceased’s flat. Faced with insurmountable odds, every aspect of the case against Ismil was challenged in one of the longest criminal trials in Singapore’s history.
In the process of doing so, the failure of the police investigators to comply with established rules in the recording of statements, failure of the police investigators to properly conduct scene investigations and the failure of the Prosecution to disclose material information to the Defence were also established. Ismil’s case was also the first where the concept of “false confessions” was successfully applied.
The powerful judgment of the Court of Appeal has become a must-read for criminal practitioners.
The Unwitting “Trafficker” – Rendered Blind not Wilfully Blind
Our client was a 35-year old Thai National who was charged together with her Singaporean boyfriend for conspiring to traffic in heroin. Our client was in possession of 62g of heroin when she was arrested at the condominium unit in which she resided with her boyfriend.
This was a particularly difficult case as not only did the presumptions of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act apply to our client but our client had also admitted to knowing that she was helping her boyfriend to pack drugs, to collect orders for the drugs, to give instructions for the delivery of drugs to others and to keep accounts of drugs sold and monies received.
In assessing the evidence and after detailed interviews with our client, Thiru argued at the trial that whilst our client knew that she was dealing in drugs, she did not know that it was heroin. Thiru further argued that our client was rendered blind and not willfully blind as she had trusted her boyfriend who had rescued her from the streets and with whom she had plans for marriage.
Following a trial in the High Court, our client was acquitted of the capital charge. This was the first case in Singapore where such a defence had succeeded. The Prosecution subsequently withdrew its appeal.