Ashwin Ganapathy

Apart from representing his clients in Court, another aspect of Ashwin’s work includes helping his clients through various stages of the investigation process - including advising his clients on their rights, and the “Dos and Dont’s” during statement taking by the police or other relevant authorities. Ashwin is also regularly sought by his clients to provide them with an effective strategy for their respective cases.

Ashwin strongly believes in giving back to the community. He accepts cases on a pro bono basis, and is a volunteer with the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme and Legal Assistance for Capital Offences (LASCO). He also sits as a panel member on the Singapore Hockey Federation Disciplinary Tribunal.

In terms of academic contributions, Ashwin has co-authored sections of the Criminal Law chapter in Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, published by Lexis Nexis. He also contributes to yearly updates of the Lexis Nexis Criminal Procedure leaflets.

Outside work, Ashwin spends his free time catching up on interesting new judgments, fussing over his pet dog and pursuing his hobby in horology.

Some of Ashwin’s notable cases are:

• Edgar Toh Jun Hao v PP (MA/9891/2020/01) - Edgar pleaded guilty to 2 counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act for trafficking ketamine and methamphetamine. At the State Courts, the District Judge, in agreeing with the Prosecution, sentenced Edgar to 9 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. Edgar appealed against the sentence and Ashwin led the appeal. On appeal to the High Court, the Honourable Justice Vincent Hoong agreed with the Defence’s submissions and reduced the sentence to 8 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
• Lau Heng Long, Angelo v PP (HC/MA 9058/2020/01) - Angelo claimed trial to a charge under s 325 of the Penal Code. He was convicted by the District Judge after 7 days of trial and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. Angelo appealed against his conviction and Ashwin led the appeal. On appeal to the High Court, the Honourable Justice Chua Lee Ming agreed with the Defence’s submissions and acquitted Angelo.
• The HIV blood donation case - This individual was charged under s 11(1) of the Infectious Diseases Act. He had been accused of falsely declaring his sexual history. This individual who was unrepresented elected to plead guilty. His plea was, however, rejected by the District Judge as he had qualified his plea of guilt. This individual’s matter was sent to the pre-trial conference with a view of setting his matter down for trial. Ashwin approached this individual and agreed to represent him on a pro bono basis. After sending in representations, the Prosecution agreed to issue a stern warning in lieu of prosecution. This case is reported in the press as - https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/hiv-positive-man-who-donated-blood-given-warning-has-charge-of-14390350
• PP v Shamsul Anwar Bin Mohd (MAC 904150/2018) - Shamsul initially faced a charge under s338(b) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224). After two rounds of representations, the charge was reduced to a count under s337(b) of the Penal Code. Shamsul pleaded guilty to the charge. The Prosecution argued that the custodial threshold had been crossed and submitted for an imprisonment term. Ashwin argued that a fine would suffice. After two rounds of submissions, the court agreed that the custodial threshold had not been crossed and imposed a fine and disqualification order on Shamsul. The Prosecution did not appeal against the sentence. This case is reported in the press as – https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/fine-ban-for-bus-driver-who-braked-suddenly-causing-passenger-to-fall
• PP v Praveen s/o Prasath [2017] SGDC 133 - Praveen initially faced a capital charge for trafficking cannabis. After submitting representations, the charge was reduced to one count under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185) for trafficking 499.99 grams of cannabis. Ashwin argued that Praveen had committed the offence under extenuating circumstances and owing to his young age, a Reformative Training Report (RT report) ought to be called. The Prosecution objected on ground that the offence was particularly grave and that a sentence of at least 23 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane was appropriate. The Prosecution based its sentencing submissions on the seminal Court of Appeal case of Suventher Shanmugam v PP [2017] 2 SLR 115 (Suventher) which was released just weeks before the sentencing hearing. At the first plead guilty mention, after hearing submissions from both parties, the court eventually agreed to call for the RT report. As the RT report was favourable, Ashwin argued that reformative training ought to be the appropriate punishment. In the alternative, Ashwin argued that the mandatory minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane would suffice. The Prosecution objected to Ashwin’s submissions and argued that a sentence of at least 23 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane was warranted. The court, after hearing parties’ submissions sentenced Praveen to 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The Prosecution appealed against the sentence but subsequently withdrew the appeal.