What defence did the officer and his friend offer in court?

Question

Accepted Answer

Officer and Friend Offered Unconvincing Defences in Court

A suspended traffic police officer and his friend, who were convicted of offences related to the misuse of government systems and criminal intimidation, presented defences in court that were ultimately dismissed as not credible. The officer claimed his superior had authorised the database searches, while the friend argued his threat was not intended as intimidation.
Officer Claimed Superior Authorised Database Access

Shivasuria Maniam Kesaval, the suspended officer, asserted that his superior had given him permission to access Ministry of Home Affairs databases. He stated this authorisation was granted so he could assist in the investigation against his friend, Brayden Ong Ying Shan. This defence aimed to legitimise his actions of querying the system for information.
Friend Denied Intent to Threaten Ex-Girlfriend

Brayden Ong Ying Shan argued that his statements to his ex-girlfriend were not intended as a threat. He contended that he did not know who had made the police report against him, and therefore, his words could not constitute intimidation. Ong also suggested the woman could not have been frightened by his remarks because she continued to be in a relationship with him afterwards.
Judge Found Both Men Lacked Credibility

District Judge Lim Tse Haw found neither Shivasuria nor Ong to be credible witnesses. The judge noted that their accounts were inconsistent, stating they "could not even get their stories straight." This lack of credibility undermined the defences presented by both the officer and his friend during the trial.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What defence did the officer and his friend offer in court?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends