- Singapore judge criticises lawyer’s confusing, error-filled plea for mitigation.
- Criminal lawyer’s written submission’s first paragraph had a 176-word sentence.
- Defendant sentenced to 6 months in jail for cheating former employer.
A Singapore judge’s frustration with a poorly written legal document highlights the importance of clear language in court.
Key Term Simplified
- Mitigation plea: A statement asking for a lighter punishment in court.
Judge’s Critique of Lawyer’s Error-Filled Plea for Mitigation
According to The Straits Times, a Singapore judge expressed strong dissatisfaction with a written mitigation plea on 11 Nov 2024.
District Judge Lim Tse Haw found the document hard to understand.
The plea was submitted by criminal lawyer Mr A. Revi Shanker.
It was for his client, Jeremy Francis Cruez, who admitted to cheating his former employer.
The judge said the plea was “convoluted and verbose and filled with grammatical errors”.
He had trouble understanding what the lawyer was trying to say.
| Issue | Example |
|---|---|
| Length | First paragraph had a 176-word sentence |
| Clarity | Judge had difficulty understanding the submission |
| Grammar | Multiple grammatical errors throughout |
Judge’s Advice for Legal Professionals
District Judge Lim Tse Haw offered guidance for future legal submissions.
He stressed the need for clear, simple language in court documents.
Acccording to The ST, the judge stated, “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner.”
Details of the Case
The case involved Jeremy Francis Cruez, a 60-year-old Sri Lankan national.
Cruez admitted to cheating his former employer, Majors Pest Management Services.
He submitted fake invoices totalling S$190,455.60 for fumigation supplies.
This fraudulent activity happened between 13 April 2017 and 22 October 2019.
Cruez marked up prices by 5% to pocket the difference.
- Total amount of fake invoices: S$190,455.60
- Personal gain: S$12,953.73
- Period of fraud: 13 April 2017 to 22 October 2019
Sentencing and Judge’s Remarks
The court sentenced Cruez to six months in jail in October 2024.
This was less than the 14 to 16 months initially sought by the prosecution.
District Judge Lim explained his decision on the sentence.
According to The Straits Times, he said, “Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of S$190,455.60 and left the company in a lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate.”
The judge considered that Cruez did perform the fumigation work.
Aftermath and Restitution Offer
After his arrest, Cruez offered to make full restitution of S$12,953.73.
This amount represented his personal gains from the offence.
However, Majors Pest Management Services declined this offer.
Do you think clear, simple language should be mandatory in all legal proceedings?
