Court of first instance | Judge adjourns Sou’s trial pending appeal

Sulu Sou (center) is seen exiting the Court of First Instance

The trial that puts lawmaker Sulu Sou and former president of the New Macau Association (ANM) Scott Chiang in the defendants’ seat finally started its first session yesterday morning at the Court of First Instance (TJB).

Contrary to what was initially planned, the session, which only lasted for 50 minutes, did not serve as an opportunity to hear any of the accused but instead, only to facilitate a discussion between  the Judge, Cheong Weng Tong, and the defense lawyer of Sou, Jorge Menezes.

At the beginning, Judge Cheong requested explanations from Menezes regarding the two appeals filed by the lawyer regarding the suspension of his client’s mandate as a lawmaker by the Legislative Assembly (AL), and the appeal filed to the Court of Second Instance (TSI) calling for a suspension on the decision that removed Sou from the status of lawmaker so that he could be trialed.
According to the Judge, the TJB was only informed yesterday morning (just before the court session’s commencement) that an appeal was running in TSI, an issue that Judge Cheong said was due the fact that Menezes had not informed the TJB in advance that he had filed a request for an appeal.

Judge Cheong called on Menezes to explain.

Menezes explained to the court that he had not informed the TJB “in to order to avoid hassle and confusion between cases,” as, in his opinion, the two proceedings are unrelated. He noted that at the time, he thought that both proceedings could take place simultaneously without disrupting the hearing that was already scheduled in the TJB.

The Judge in charge of the criminal case disagreed and noted that in the court’s opinion the cases are quite related and one could influence the procedures and outcomes of the other.

After the exchange of arguments and opinions, Menezes asked to have a quick word with his client. Chiang and his newly appointed lawyer, Pedro Leal, participated in this conversation. 

Menezes, representing Sou, then addressed the Court saying, “My client wishes to express that if, in order not to delay this case [hearing], the court would accept a declaration of his withdrawal [from the TSI appeal] he [would be] willing to do that.”

The  declaration did not elicit any comments from Judge Cheong; the minutes for the session do not record any comment. Cheong decided to suspend the trial until the TSI arrives at a final decision on the appeal submitted by Sou.

Menezes said that his client has decided to withdraw the appeal and that this should allow for the main case to proceed.

Judge Cheong’s decision was followed by a call for the opinion of both defendants’ lawyers as well as the Public Prosecutor who said, “Since the appeal [for the TSI] of the decision involves an immediate effect – that is the [revoking of the] suspension decision – that means that he can take back his position immediately and if this happens the criminal process cannot continue.” 

“We are at a crossroads here,” he continued. “We don’t know what the decision of the TSI will be. It’s not that we cannot continue today [as Menezes advocated] but we do take a serious risk and besides we need to follow the principle of the continuity of the process.”

His comments thus make it clear that he was advocating for the trial’s suspension.

The lawyer of the first defendant, Leal, agreed with the Public Prosecutor, noting that it was possible to continue if the judge thought she could finish the trial before a sentence is reached by the TSI on the appeal.

In the end, Menezes agreed that the position from the prosecutor was “very lucid” and acknowledged that he had mistakenly not accounted for all factors in the concurrent cases.

Menezes said, “eventually I ended up interfering with the work of this court [but] that was actually the opposite of my intentions,” and he went on to note that it is sometimes difficult to understand the correct procedures “as the regulations of the AL do not have very clear rules [and this] gives way to different interpretations.”

After these developments the court sessions on the case have now been halted and according to the Judge in charge of the process, a new hearing will only be scheduled after the TSI’s decision on the appeal.