The 59 accused were: 1. Tan Kheng Ann alias Robert Black alias Ang Chuar 2. Chia Yeo Fatt alias Botak 3. Cheong Wai Sang alias See Chap Kau Sien 4. Somasundram son of Suptramaniam 5. Lim Tee Kang alias Bobby 6. Somasundarajoo son of Vengdasalam alias Ali 7. Lim Kim Chuan alias Tua Tai alias Tua Pui 8. Khoo Geok San alias Kepala Batu alias Ah San 9. Chan Wah alias Hak Kwei Soh 10. Chin Kiong alias Hakka Chai 11. Hoe Hock Hai alias Ah Hai 12. Ponapalam son of Govindasamy alias Tom Tom 13. Peh Guan Hock alias Han Chee Gong 14. Chia Geok Choo alias Jimmy alias Sar Kang Huay 15. Chew Seng Hoe 16. Yeow Yew Boon alias Mee Mee 17. Teng Eng Tay alias Robert 18. Ong Sik Kwong alias Sar Siow 19. Chew Thiam Huat alias Baby Chai 20. Heng Lian Choon alias Ah Liang 21. Lim Teck San 22. Sia Ah Kow alias Ark Bar 23. Sim Cheng Tee alias Kok Tau 24. Chua Hai Imm alias Botak 25. Sim Hoe Seng alias Chat Ah Seng 26. Ng Cheng Liong alias Ah Pong 27.
Tan Yin Chwee alias Ah Eng 28. Kwek Kok Wah 29. Toh Kok Pen 30.
Teo Han Teck 31. Sim Teck Beng 32. Ng Chuan Puay 33. Tan Tian Soo alias Tian Ah alias Ah Tian 34. Ang Teck Kee alias Ah Kuah 35. Tay Teck Bok 36. Aziz bin Salim alias Terry 37. Chew Yam Meng alias Ah Soi 38. Teo Lian Choon alias Ah Ngar 39. Cheong Kim Seng 40. Tan Chin alias Soi Han 41. Leow Ah Chai 42. Lim Kim Si an 43. Yong Ah Chew alias Au Chua alias Put Yeow 44. Soh Ah Kang 45.
Tan Eng Hoe alias Kang Or 46. Choy Peng Kwong 47. Heng Boon Leng 48. Koh Ah Tiaw 49. Teng Ah Kow alias Ah Kow 50. Tan Tian Lay 51. Neo Lim Leong 52. Gan Kim Siong alias Ang Kee 53. Lim Heng Soon alias Ah Soon 54. Ng Pang Leng 55. Chia Tiong Guan 56. Koh Teck Thow 57. Lim Thiam Huat alias Botak 58. Cheng Poh Keng alias Kow Kia 59. Low Chai Kiat alias Jimmy
Of the lot, 55 of the prisoners were Chinese, three were Tamil Indians and one was a Malay.
They were all charged collectively that ‘on or about the 12th day of July 1963, at about 1:15 PM at the Pulau Senang Settlement, Singapore’, they were members of an unlawful assembly whose common objects were to cause the death of Daniel Stanley Dutton, Arumugam Veerasingham, Tan Kok Hian, Wang Loke Hai, alias Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to cause the destruction of the settlement, and that while members of that assembly, ‘committed murder by causing the death of Dutton, an offence which the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common objects of the assembly’.
They were all further charged with murdering Veerasingham and Tan Kok Hian.
Ball applied to the Court for separate trials, or alternatively for the accused to be tried in groups. He also complained that the prisoners were wearing detainees’ clothing and not their own clothing. Judge Buttrose: The issue here Mr Ball is not whether they are detainees, but whether one or more or all of these detainees committed this offence.
Mr Ball also asked the Judge to note on record that the dock had a door with a grille around it. Judge Buttrose: Mr Ball, are you seriously contending that this is not justified in this case?
Later the Judge remarked (the jury was not present) that he would feel ‘distinctly alarmed’ sitting there for the next three months ‘with everything wide open’. He pointed out that any reasonable number of determined men could do irreparable harm in a very few minutes. Mr Balclass="underline" We do have cases in other countries where we don’t have this kind of precaution. Judge Buttrose: Unfortunately, Mr Ball, we have not in my experience ever had a case of this sort. Mr Balclass="underline" Not of this magnitude. Judge Buttrose: Or of this appalling kind.
Counsel argued that these unusual security precautions were brought about because of the large number of accused, which he held produced an unfavourable atmosphere for the accused. This could be avoided if there were small groups and if they wore their own clothing.
Mr Ball pointed out the magnitude of the trial. He held that the prosecution would have to prove, and the defence to meet, and the Court to give separate directions, in respect of 177 murder charges, because there were three charges for each of the 59 people. In respect of each case no less than 15 issues appeared to arise on the wording of the charges alone. And in respect of these several thousand issues, the evidence of 95 witnesses had to be tabulated and considered in each case. Such multiplicity would not arise in the case of separate trials, or trials of smaller groups. He argued that separate trials might well shorten the proceedings especially where one or more of the accused should fall ill in the course of the trial, ‘because if any one of them chooses to fall ill, so to speak, the whole trial might be delayed for an awfully long time’. All the other defence counsel supported Mr Ball’s application.
Crown Counsel, Mr Francis Seow, objected. He was confident that the prosecution could put across its case in respect of all three charges against the 59 accused in one trial. The Judge intervened to observe that if there were separate trials ‘we could go on for several years’.
Seow pointed out that the riot took place on a penal island and the persons on trial were detainees. “There is no way of getting round it, my Lord: and the fact would also come out that these persons are secret society members. That is why they have been arrested under the Criminal Law. Many of the witnesses will be similarly attired: they are also Criminal Law detainees.” Crown Counsel added that having group trials would take too long a period. Judge Buttrose: That, of course, is quite irrelevant, unfortunately. Obviously all of us want to get this case over and done with, but we can’t just say that we can’t have separate trials because they would take too much time.
Crown counsel argued that it would be difficult to avoid press reports of each trial and the question of injustice might then arise. Judge Buttrose: The fact that the issues may be multifarious, the fact that there are a large number of accused, the fact that it may be difficult perhaps, or more difficult than usual, to give a clear picture of this case to the jury, is, of course, no reason why either separate trials or trials in groups should be ordered. All I think I need say for the purposes of dealing with the arguments is in my view, difficult and unpleasant though the task and duty would be, that I direct that all the accused shall be tried together at this trial on the three charges.
The Judge, having ordered each accused to wear an identification number (‘how can you expect seven jurors to remember 59 names?’), urged all concerned to ‘let us get this case started on the rails’. Mr Ball formally applied for separate trials for separate charges on separate charge sheets, and the Judge refused the application, noting that all defence counsel associated themselves with the objection to a mass trial. “Now, have them charged,” demanded the Judge, and the trial was under way. One juror asked to be excused because he knew one of the accused by sight, ‘and I also have a lot of work to do’. The Judge excused him because he knew the accused. Another person was empannelled, and Loo Ting Soo was elected Foreman. The other six jurors were Lee Em Long, Ang Buck Chin, Siew Ngar Kee, Goh Siew Hee, Boey Poh Wai and Ong Kim Siang.
Mr Francis Seow opened his case. He addressed the Court for about three hours. His first witness was Corporal Albert Brendan Kitchen, a Royal Air Force photographer stationed at the RAF station at Seletar, Singapore. He testified that he took 63 photographs of Pulau Senang during the afternoon of 13 July, and later handed the negatives to Inspector Maurice Oh. S.V. Rajan, a police photographer, gave evidence that he took 18 photographs of various scenes on the island. Five photographs were of four male corpses.
Before adjournment at 4:00 PM that afternoon, the Judge asked for the co-operation of counsel in not smoking in Court. There was a notice to that effect. “If you start smoking I will leave the Bench,” he warned. He also ordered that counsel must not talk to the accused in Court. Counsel would, of course, want to discuss matters with their clients and the prison authorities would make arrangements for them to see them at any time, either before the Court sits or after the adjournment. When Ball began to protest, the Judge reminded him that the trial was ‘quite a major operation’. He promised counsel that proper arrangements would be made for them to see their clients privately, not in Court.