Ascending The Monument

The Challenge: Climb 311 steps to the top of the tower - or so I thought. 

Standing 62 metres / 203 feet tall, the 'Monument to the Great Fire of London' is a fluted Doric column located in Central London, built between 1671 to 1677.

311 steps? No biggee. I climb the slopes of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve regularly. I paid the entrance fee of £5.80 and proceeded.  (The date was Sunday, 1 May 2022.) 

Little did I know what I had signed myself up for. 

The stairwell was a narrow tube containing a spiral staircase, just wide enough for one other person to brush past you. 

Very soon, I began to feel like I was walking up an endless curl, churning indefinitely. 

How long more to the top? I began to wonder. Instinctively, I looked up: only to see stairs spiralling upwards with no endpoint in sight. Big mistake. Panic rattled the doorknob of my mind, trying to enter. I fought a desire to quit and turn back down. 

I pressed on, but it seemed like I was climbing a forever spiral, walking up ascending circles indefinitely. It was surreal. It felt like I was looping a spiral version of the Penrose stairs. Claustrophobia was now nipping at my heels. 

To escape claustrophobia, I eyed the walls, looking for a window to the sky. Instead, I saw elongated windows like slits in the cylinder walls, so narrow that it was hard to see the outside. Distorted windows that promised but obscured view of the outside, added a sense of desperation. 

I stopped to catch my breath. 

Dotting the spiral column were climbers like me making their way up, even as others were making their way down. The muted din of their chatter was a comforting white noise. I sought to breathe in the air of their enthusiasm. 

A man a few steps below me on the opposite saw my hesitation. He caught my eye and said affirmatively, "You can do it!" His timely encouragement billowed my sails. Spurred, I determined to finish the climb. I had come this far. The only choice was to reach the top. I took a deep breath and then pounded up the remaining steps for the final assault. 

Yes, I did reach the top - winded, dizzy and somewhat daunted. 

I staggered to the parapet to wave to my husband and son who were on the ground looking out for me. 

I felt no joy at topping the tower, but dread that I had to go back into the darn tube to get back to the ground.

To get myself down, I decided to count the 311 steps aloud to myself as I descended. I figured that doing a countdown would give me the mental assurance that the curl will end eventually. That was how I made it through the narrow tube back to the ground without panicking. 

Who knew that the challenge was not about finishing a climb of 311 steps. The real challenge was to complete the journey of travelling up a high, mentally uncomfortable vertical tunnel. It was not a test of physical fitness but of mental fortitude. 

When climbing 10 storeys of a building, you would walk up straight flights of stairs, going one way and then the opposite way, usually wide enough for three people to walk abreast. Not to mention, there will be exit doors at every floor. That is not the case when ascending a 60 metre spiral staircase inside a narrow tube.

Did I enjoy the experience? Nope, it was scary. 

Would I do it again? Absolutely not!

Why the Accused Person Cannot be Named in Some Cases — a Lawyer Explains

Gag orders are for the benefit of victims and witnesses only

It is cardinal that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, media reports on crimes regularly name the person accused of the crime, thereby exposing the person to shame even before conviction.  There is no lack of examples where accused persons, who were subsequently proven innocent, nonetheless had their good names dragged through the mud by media coverage in the run-up to being vindicated by acquittal.

In fact, whenever a person is accused of a criminal offence, the principle of Open Justice upholds the public’s right to know why and how.  Open Justice requires the trial of a person accused of a crime to be conducted in the public eye. There is an open invitation to the public to scrutinise the process by which the judge decides the guilt or innocence of the accused person. 

In other words, Open Justice means: "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." 

Transparency of the legal process promotes public confidence in the outcome of the trial.  With confidence in the administration of justice, aggrieved parties have no reason to take the law into their own hands.  Open Justice promotes trust that the legal system will right the wrongs - that culprits will be brought their just deserts and that justice will be served.

Open Justice is so fundamental that unless the accused person is a minor at the time of the offence, or when gag orders are made, media is free to name accused persons.

For accused persons below 18 years at the time of the offence, statutory provisions ban the publication of their names as well as information that may lead to their identification.  It is an automatic ban.  There is no need to apply to court for gag orders to seal the identifying particulars of such young accused persons.

Gag orders preventing the public from knowing certain pertinent facts of an alleged crime, in fact contradicts the imperatives of Open Justice.  The contradiction is permitted for one reason only - that it is in the interest and for the benefit of victims and witnesses to do so. 

Gag orders on the identity of victims and witnesses serve the important function of protecting and shielding them from the distress of public exposure, thereby enabling them to give their testimony to the Court candidly and without embarrassment or reprisal. For victims of sexual offences, gag orders also minimise further trauma to such victims and prevent re‑victimisation.

Gag orders anonymising the names of victims and witnesses of sexual offences are the norm.  Less common are gag orders on the identity of the person accused of the sexual offence. Sometimes, media reports state the reason the accused persons cannot be named is due to gag orders protecting the victims’ identity.

But sometimes, the media reports do not give the reason for the Court’s decision to hide the identity of the accused person.  The absence of explanation for withholding the accused person’s identity, may give rise to cynicism.  It may appear as if such accused persons have been given the “benefit” of anonymity and spared from the glare of the public eye.  

Were those gag orders made to shield the accused person from shame? To protect the reputation of the organisation the accused person belongs to? The answer is No.

The law is clear: the sole purpose of gag orders is for the benefit of victims and witnesses, never for the accused person nor any other persons or interests. 

No less than our Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has categorically stated: gag orders "are imposed solely for the protection of victims or witnesses and never for the benefit of accused persons.  This means that the only basis for extending the scope of a gag order to include an accused person's identity is that the disclosure of his identity would likely lead to the identification of the victims or witnesses". (Ref: Chua Yi Jin Colin v PP [2021] SGHC 290)

This means that the only reason to seal the identity of the accused person and any other particulars of the case, is because the Court takes the view that exposing those particulars would expose the identity of the victims and witnesses.

Crimes and the carriage of justice are everybody’s business. Whenever a person is accused of a crime, the public has the right to know all the relevant details about the case.  Information facilitates the public’s effort to understand the context of the alleged crime, why and how it happened. With proper understanding, the public is enabled to follow the course of justice and to appreciate the eventual outcome of the trial.

But if the Court decides that the exposure of certain information is detrimental to the victims and witnesses, then the public’s right to know will be deferred for the sake of the victims and witnesses. 

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, a lawyer practising in Singapore for more than 30 years.

23 February 2022