A Court Reporter Takes Notes as Justice, Mercy Are Dispensed

The most unlikely people can end up as offenders but, fortunately, the judges weigh many factors before they pass a sentence.

- Christine Tan

The frail man hunched over in a wheelchair looked nothing like a criminal. And yet, the man in his 70s—who had a mental condition—had started a fire which killed a domestic helper living in the flat above him.

Justice needed to be served. But how? As a crime and courts journalist covering this case in 2023, I could not come to a conclusion. District Judge Carol Ling, however, could.

Sentencing the man to a mandatory treatment order (MTO) in lieu of jail, District Judge Ling said imposing jail on someone with a mental illness would not deter such offences. But she emphasized that the fatal tragedy was not lost on the court. She added that if the man failed to attend his treatments, the court could revoke the MTO and sentence him again.

Cases like these come to mind when my friends ask me: Doesn't reporting about crime make you disillusioned about human beings?

I tell them: Stories in our courts actually give me hope in humanity.

THE EXERCISE OF JUSTICE

When I started court reporting, I thought it was a theatre where villains were held to account for their crimes. The truth is more complex.

There is a human behind every offence. The circumstances in each case are unique. And sentencing is not an ad hoc exercise.

In what may seem like a methodical and mathematical process, the court conducts a nuanced exercise of justice.

On a matrix, it decides the level of harm caused by the crime and how culpable the accused was for the offence.

For example, in a case of voyeurism, if it decides the level of harm was low and the accused's role was minimal, an offence may attract just a fine or imprisonment of up to four months.

At the other end of the spectrum, the same offence may attract 18 to 24 months' jail with caning, if the accused is found to have caused great harm and was hugely culpable for the crime.