PERSONAL DECISION: 'No one told him to get rid of the lawyer.' -- JUDGE OF APPEAL V.K. RAJAH, who pointed out that Tan (above) had a lawyer at first but later discharged him

View more photos

But the former secret society leader, dubbed the One-eyed Dragon because he is blind in the right eye, was all smiles after losing his appeal against his conviction which carries the mandatory death sentence, handed down last year.

Grinning widely, Tan jested yesterday about his 30-year smoking habit and joshed with his pals, after the three-judge Court of Appeal announced its decision.

The courtroom was later cleared for him to talk to his wife, Madam Siau Fang Fang. She emerged 15 minutes later, her eyes reddened, but declined to comment.

Tan was convicted last year of firing six pistol rounds with intent to injure nightclub boss Lim Hock Soon, 40, at the latter's Serangoon flat in February 2006. Tan, who had refused a lawyer during his trial, was yesterday represented by Mr Subhas Anandan.

Mr Anandan was assigned to argue the appeal after Tan said he wanted the prominent criminal lawyer to act for him.

During the trial, Tan's defence for shooting Mr Lim was that he had been drunk, that the shots were fired accidentally, and that he had acted in self-defence.

Yesterday, Mr Anandan did not address Tan's points but instead contended that Tan had been denied a fair trial.

He said the conditions of Tan's time in remand were so 'oppressive' that it affected his preparations for his trial.

Mr Anandan argued that Tan was kept in solitary confinement for 220 days at the Complex Medical Centre (CMC) of Changi Prison and said his client suffered 'mental torture'.

'CMC is a very depressing place,' he said.

Mr Anandan also argued that Tan was denied a lawyer to help with his closing submissions. After reading the prosecution's closing arguments during his trial, Tan had asked the judge: 'If I say I need a lawyer, how?'

Mr Anandan said that although the trial judge, Justice Tay Yong Kwang, had given Tan a lot of latitude in conducting his defence, he had dismissed the accused's plea for help.

However, Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang noted that Tan was given the opportunity for defence counsel.

And pointing out that Tan had a lawyer at first but later discharged him, Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah said: 'No one told him to get rid of the lawyer.'

Mr Anandan noted that in countries such as the United States, an appointed defence lawyer follows the case even if he is turned down by the accused, in the event that the accused changes his mind.

He asked the court to set aside the conviction and order a re-trial.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Sing Lit argued that there was no evidence that the conditions at CMC were oppressive.

In reply to a question by Justice Rajah, the DPP said there was no record of any complaint from Tan. He pointed out that by the time Tan made his ambiguous query about a lawyer, all the evidence had already been presented and a lawyer could not change that.

The court, which also comprised Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed Tan's appeal. Detailed grounds are expected to be delivered at a later date.

selinal@sph.com.sg