Lawyer granted access to teen in rooftop graffiti case

Lawyer granted access to teen in rooftop graffiti case

SINGAPORE - A lawyer was yesterday granted access to his teenage client who is alleged to have been part of a group who vandalised a block in Toa Payoh last week.

Mr Choo Zheng Xi met 17-year-old David William Graaskov last night at Tanglin Police Division, where he is being held during investigations. His parents were also present.

The prosecution did not object to the lawyer's application for immediate access but opposed his second application for a gag order to prevent the publication of any information that may lead to the youngster's identification.

Graaskov - along with Goh Rong Liang, Boaz Koh Wen Jie, Chay Nam Shen and Reagan Tan Chang Zhi, all 17 - has been charged with vandalism by spraying graffiti on walls at the top of the 22-storey Block 85A in Lorong 4 Toa Payoh at about 12.30am on May 7.

They are said to have sprayed expletive-filled words in red against the People's Action Party and police, before signing off with the name "Mike Cool". All five will return to court tomorrow.

In court yesterday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Tang Shangjun told the court that the prosecution would not object to Graaskov's parents speaking to him in the dock. However, District Judge Eddy Tham disallowed this and permitted the teen to call his parents instead.

[[nid:106611]]

Applying for the gag order, Mr Choo tendered computer screenshots showing online forum discussions which he said were damaging to his client and his client's future.

After the court noted that Graaskov's pictures and name had already been published, Mr Choo said he would use a gag order to compel websites to take down any offending material.

Under the State Courts Act, he argued that a judge has the discretion to make the gag order as long as the person is a witness.

He submitted that his client is an ordinary witness until he is convicted and sentenced.

Objecting to the gag order, Mr Tang said the State Courts Act is generally used to protect the identity of victims, especially in cases involving sexual offences.

In this case, he said there were no good reasons for the gag order to be granted.

The judge dismissed the counsel's application for the order, saying it was "inappropriate".

The maximum penalty for vandalism is a $2,000 fine, three years' jail and caning of three to eight strokes.

This article was published on Mat 15 in The Straits Times.

Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

This website is best viewed using the latest versions of web browsers.