Judge scolds lawyer for poorly written mitigation, Latest Singapore News

A judge has scolded a criminal lawyer for the poor quality of a written mitigation defense he submitted to the court on behalf of a client who pleaded guilty to a cheating charge.

In his ruling dated November 11, District Judge Lim Tse Haw said he told Mr A. Revi Shanker that his mitigation order was “so complex and detailed” and full of grammatical errors that he had difficulty understanding what the lawyer was trying to present.

The judge said: “Lawyers and prosecutors must prepare their written submissions in plain English and in a manner that is easy to read. “This will save even more judicial time in reading and understanding submissions.”

He asked Mr Shanker to make an oral presentation in court to understand the mitigation.

Mr Shanker’s client, Jeremy Francis Cruez, was sentenced to six months in prison in October. The 60-year-old Sri Lankan citizen admitted to deceiving his former company, Major’s Pest Management Services.

The prosecution sought a prison sentence of 14 to 16 months, while Mr Shanker requested a fine.

Both sides appealed the sentence, but court records show Cruez dropped his appeal.

As fumigation manager, Cruez was responsible for procuring the necessary materials for fumigation work.

Between April 13, 2017, and October 22, 2019, he submitted false or counterfeit invoices to his company from six suppliers for fumigation-related materials, claiming a total of $190,455.60. The amount had to be paid in cash.

Cruez had actually purchased the materials from other sources and increased the prices on the counterfeit or counterfeit invoices by 5 percent. He intended to pocket the difference.

When asked by the company’s general manager why suppliers needed to be paid in cash, he explained that under Major’s previous general manager, they were paid in cash.

He gave emails from suppliers allegedly requesting cash or cheque payments to a person named Myrna, who was identified as the “manager in charge of accounts” in the emails. However, Myrna was his close friend who worked as a housekeeper.

Believing the ruse, the company paid $190,455.60 to Cruez or Myrna for materials.

In the ruling, District Judge Lim highlighted the first paragraph of Mr Shanker’s mitigating order, which consisted of a single sentence of 176 words.

In the paragraph, among many other points, Mr. Shanker said his client “had to be at the mercy of friends and relatives whose help had unexpectedly diminished.” Daily meetings at religious places of worship and other organizations have become more frequent.”

District Judge Lim said he checked with Mr Shanker and confirmed that the lawyer had drafted the mitigation.

To avoid any misunderstanding regarding mitigation, at the hearing on October 22, 2024, the judge asked counsel to verbally summarize what he was trying to present.

Mr. Shanker said during the hearing that Cruez did not meet his guilty plea.

He added that his client has offered to fully refund to Major’s Pest Control Services the amount of $12,953.73, Cruez’s personal profits from the crime. However, this offer was rejected by the pest control company.

While District Judge Lim rejected the defense’s request for a fine, he said the prosecution’s request for a prison sentence of 14 to 16 months was clearly excessive.

“If the defendant had pocketed the entire $190,455.60 and left the company in a difficult situation by not doing any of the pesticide work, then perhaps a prison sentence of 14 to 16 months, as requested by the prosecution, would have been appropriate.” in question.