The inconsistent way in which some testimonies were believed but others not came up at appeal.

[Defence counsel Engelin Teh] questioned why Judge Jasbendar Kaur proceeded with the case against Ding on the basis of one "unusually convincing witness" when he had already been acquitted of six other similar charges.

Ten other charges had also been withdrawn by the prosecution.

To this, [Court of Appeal] Justice V K Rajah agreed that the case "boils down to one person's words against another's", and noted that he was disturbed that the district judge had not explained how she had ruled that the witnesses were credible -- when the evidence gathered was uncorroborated at times.

He asked both lawyers: "Isn't it relevant why she didn't believe them?"

Instead of placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, Ms Teh said, the judge had "cherry-picked the evidence to support her findings of guilt and supplemented serious gaps in the prosecution's case".

-- 'Today' newspaper, 10 April 2008,
Ex-teacher appeals molest conviction

Ding's lawyer also repeated to the appeal court his defence. She

... told the court the students had levelled these accusations against Ding because they had "an axe to grind" with their teacher.

Their grouse: Ding, who had two stints with the school between 1997 and 2005, was a strict disciplinarian who would not hesitate to scold them harshly.

As a result, the boys were involved in "frequent acrimonious altercations" with Ding and their dislike for him gave them "compelling motives to frame him".

One boy not only spread rumours in 2004 that Ding was gay but also posted resentful comments -- some of which also included vulgarities -- about the teacher on his personal blog.

Ms Teh read out some examples of the posts on the student's blog: "I hate his voice. I hate his face. I hate everything about him."

-- ibid.

The behaviour of the trial judge herself was questionable, said Ding's lawyer. The district judge had "descended into the arena", adopting an "inquisitorial role" by repeatedly intervening in the proceedings with her own cross-examination of the witnesses. In one instance, Judge Jasbendar Kaur posed 84 consecutive questions to one of the complainants after re-examination by the lawyers. The judge "tried so hard to get him to confirm that the charge was valid," claimed Teh. Then based on the evidence she elicited from her questioning, she subsequently amended the prosecution's charge. Teh argued that the judge was "pushing a point" and "had failed in her role as an impartial fact finder and adjudicator".

As mentioned above, the appeal judge saw this case as one person's word against another.

In cases of such a nature, the complainant's testimony must be either 'unusually convincing' or sufficiently corroborated to prove the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

'I am not convinced that the testimonies of the two complainants can be characterised or viewed as 'unusually convincing'. That would be a stretch of both fact and logic,' [Justice V K Rajah] said.

'In addition, the corroboration relied upon by the lower court was, at best, of a dubious nature.'

-- Straits Times, 1 May 2008, Cleared at last,
'I will spend my life celebrating.'

With that, he quashed William Ding's conviction.

* * * * *
  

Did the prosecution not weigh the evidence themselves before they charged Ding? Did they not see the inconsistencies? Or was the mere whiff of same-sex impropriety enough to send them off on a campaign to crucify him?

People with a homophobic bent tend to think that homosexual contact is so horrible that no one would lightly claim to be a victim of it, since being a victim is emasculating. Thus, if anybody claims to be a victim, then it must necessarily be true. This is the kind of mindset that leads a prosecution team into blindly charging down into foolishness.

An alternative explanation was offered by OldHam_nec who wrote a comment to the letter by Khoo Lih-Han (at right). OldHam_nec argued that sloppy police work probably led to this. It takes a "very sharp and good investigating team", he said, "to look at discrepancies in statements and ... cast doubt when there are doubts", instead of "passive recording of statements from both parties."

Perhaps, instead of taking ownership of a case, "the quick solution [was] to pass it to the [Attorney-General's Chambers] with the recommendation to let the Court decide", OldHam_nec said. Those of us familiar with Singapore's bureaucracy would somehow find such passing-the-buck behaviour rather familiar. 

Yet, this scenario does not explain why the Attorney-General's Chambers thought the case was good enough to prosecute, nor explain the "inquisitorial" behaviour of the trial judge.

During the trial, the teenage boys were contradicting each other. Their own subsequent behaviour towards Ding belied their accusations. At one point, it took the judge 84 questions of a witness in order to elicit something incriminating -– and then it came out in a way that was different from the original charge.

Why did she engage in this? Why was she so determined to find Ding guilty? Was it because, in her mind, there was no way he couldn't be guilty – once same-sex touching had been bruited?

At least Ding was vindicated on appeal. But it has been a long-drawn and expensive trial for him. He has to pay his own legal costs; the state is not going to compensate him for the homophobic panic of its officers.

This is another example of how the state wrongs its own citizens through a homophobic climate in the very corridors of power.

© Yawning Bread