Ong Pei Ching was interviewed by Yow Ke Jia in Lianhe Zaobao, in an article questioning the trend of using a lawyer’s negligence to ask for a sentence reduction or to overturn a verdict.

Pei Ching is quoted explaining that as long as lawyers follow the instructions of the client, fulfil their professional obligations to the court, and make reasonable decisions after studying all the evidence and the applicable laws, they should be respected. A legal and reasonable strategic decision does not mean that adequate legal assistance has not been provided. She added that she has not seen instances where a conviction was overturned because of the lawyer’s conduct. In criminal proceedings, the threshold for proving lawyer negligence to overturn a conviction is very high, such that the lawyer’s conduct must fall clearly below the objective standard that there is obvious or serious dereliction of duty or indifference, and that there is a real possibility that inadequate assistance caused a miscarriage of justice.

Pei Ching also cited an example where a defendant accused the lawyer of not giving him proper advice and not allowing him to take the stand at trial. The court found that the lawyer had failed to keep records of the meetings and failed to meet with the accused for approximately 10 months after being appointed as his defence counsel. However, the defendant decided to remain silent following the lawyer’s advice and believed that there were risks in defending himself. Although the lawyer’s behaviour may violate professional conduct, it did not meet the threshold for misconduct. She added that when the court examines such charges, it will evaluate whether there is any evidence that has not been submitted and whether the evidence may affect the conviction. In the case of death row inmate Muhammad Salleh, he claimed that there was new evidence, but the court found from the meeting minutes that he did not discuss the matter with the trial lawyer at all, and his letter to the appeal counsel also showed that it was he who decided to omit the evidence, not the lawyer’s negligence.

Further, Pei Ching pointed out that if the defendant is represented by a new counsel during the appeal, the new counsel has the responsibility to evaluate whether the accusation against the original lawyer is reasonable. If the accusation violates the existing evidence and hence amount to an abuse of process, the new counsel should advise the client not to raise this, otherwise the court may order the new counsel to bear the litigation costs. In addition, the former lawyer should be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations in writing and attend the relevant hearing if necessary.