Annual Report 2011

CONTENTS

VISION, MISSION AND VALUES 01

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE 04

FOREWORD BY THE REGISTRAR 10

CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION 14

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 18 - Opening of the Legal Year - Mass Call - International Conference on Electronic Litigation - Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) Tea

THE SUPREME COURT BENCH 24 - Changes to the Bench - Highlights of Judges’ Events - Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events

INTERNATIONAL PROFILE 36 - Rankings in International Surveys - Overseas Conferences, Attachments and Speaking Engagements - Visits by Distinguished Guests

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 42 - Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar - Legal Colloquium - Customer Service Conference - Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource System (STARS) - Organisational Accolades

TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE 48 - Workload Statistics - Waiting Periods - Caseload and Disposal of Cases relating to Disciplinary Proceedings

QUALITY OF JUSTICE 56 - SignificantDecisionsoftheCourtofAppeal - Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court and the Practice Directions

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS 68

STAFF AND ORGANISATION 70 - Cohesion Day - Corporate Challenge - Staff Awards - Staff Welfare Activities - - Supreme Court Organisation Chart - Staff Photos

VISION

To establish and maintain a world-class Judiciary.

MISSION

To superintend the administration of justice.

VALUES

Integrity and Independence

PublictrustandconfidenceintheSupremeCourtrestsonitsintegrity

and the transparency of its processes. The public must be assured

that court decisions are fair and independent, that court staff are

incorruptible, and that court records are accurate.

Quality Public Service

As a public institution dedicated to the administration of justice,

the Supreme Court seeks to meet the needs of court users, with an

emphasis on accessibility, quality and the timely delivery of services.

Learning and Innovation

The Supreme Court recognises that to be a world-class Judiciary, we

need to continually improve ourselves and our processes. We therefore

encourage learning and innovation to take the Supreme Court to the

highest levels of performance.

Ownership

We value the contributions of our staff, who are committed and proud

to be part of the Supreme Court.

01

Jud

ge

s a

nd

Sta

ff o

f th

e S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt o

f Sin

ga

po

re

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr Attorney

Mr Wong Meng Meng SC, President of the Law Society

Members of the Bar

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Judiciary, I welcome you all to this morning’s ceremony to open the new Legal Year. I also welcome the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Brunei, Pengiran Hajah Rostaina binte Pengiran Haji Duraman; Mr Lim Chee Wee, President of the Malaysian Bar Council; Mr Kumar Ramanathan SC, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar

Association and Mr Junius Ho, President of the Law Society of Hong Kong, and distinguished guests from other Commonwealth jurisdictions. We thank you all for being present here to participate in this annual tradition.

On this occasion, we need to remind ourselves that we live in an imperfect and unequal world and all of us here who are involved in the administration of justice should do our utmost in achieving fair and just outcomes for litigants according to law. In this connection, I wish to thank the Attorney-General and the President of the Law Society for their assurances of their fullest support and co-operation for our endeavours in the coming year. I regard these assurances not as mere platitudes uttered only on this occasion, but as vows of a calling. I also take note of the kind words and praise that the Attorney-General has expressed in respect of the contributions of Justice Kan Ting Chiu to the administration of justice in Singapore. We share in these tributes to him, and we wish him a stress-free retirement.

At last year’s Opening of the Legal Year, I spoke on three main topics: (a) the state of criminal practice and the Criminal Bar, (b) the problem of missing clients’ monies in conveyancing matters, and (c) the need for a larger pool of expert litigation counsel to represent consumers and investors, especially in advising and representing them in important financial or commercial claims against big business in

04

Response of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong delivered at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012 on 6 January 2012

Message from the Chief Justice

Singapore. I am happy to note that all these concerns have been looked into and certain measures will be taken to alleviate some of these problems, as you have just heard from the Attorney-General and the President of the Law Society. I would like to add a few more observations on these and other matters.

The state assigned counsel scheme – “LASCO”The Law Society has worked with the Supreme Court Registry in making structural changes to LASCO, the acronym for the state assigned counsel scheme, in order to improve the quality of representation in capital cases. We have constituted a LASCO Selection Panel, whose members include Senior Counsel and members of the Criminal Bar, to provide a more rigorous emplacement and assignment process for counsel to lead in LASCO matters. We have increased the honorarium payable to counsel, but not to market rates. We must not forget that many of the defendants concerned would not be able to afford what is being paid as honorarium to the two assigned counsel under the scheme. The value of LASCO is not in the honorarium but counsel’s services. I am glad that many LASCO volunteers have spoken out publicly that the motivation for their efforts is not the honorarium but the personal satisfaction of providing the best possible defence for their clients, with the added sense of achievement if their clients are acquitted or the charges are reduced. While the number of qualified counsel on the Panel is certainly important, the quality of counsel is even more crucial. In this connection, I would urge the Senior Counsel Forum to persuade its members to play a greater role in LASCO and also in the Law Society’s own pro bono scheme, ie, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (“CLAS”). As Senior Counsel are, by definition, the elite of the profession, it is only right that they take the lead in accepting pro bono work. For that reason, I am

05

also mulling over whether to make prior pro bono representation in criminal matters another criterion for future appointments as Senior Counsel. I will seek the views of my Judges and the Law Society on this matter.

Pro bono workMr Wong referred to the American Bar Association’s recommendation of 50 hours of pro bono work every year for its members, and has suggested that global lawyers based here might wish to make cash donations in lieu of their domestic pro bono obligations.1 But, before we ask others to contribute, the Bar has to lead by example. In this regard, I am glad to note that, among other initiatives, the Bar has in 2011 contributed about $127,000 to the Law Society’s pro bono programme, CLAS, of which $76,000 came from the larger law firms. But the latter group of firms can surely do better, considering that the Law Society managed to raise more than twice that sum at its 2011 Charity Golf Tournament. With their lucrative corporate and civil litigation practices, these firms sit atop of Singapore’s wealth pole (to use the caption of a Business Times report published in its Christmas eve edition). They are among the greatest beneficiaries of our laws and legal system. In corporate law firms, lawyers can only “eat what [they] kill”. As pro bono work brings nothing to the dinner table, one can understand why young aspiring corporate lawyers would be reluctant to do pro bono work. They can be encouraged to do so if management provides them with an incentive, such as crediting their pro bono work with a notional income based on what they would have earned for the firm at their normal charge-out rates. Perhaps, law firms that are large enough might even consider setting up pro bono departments, as some American law firms have done. This brings to mind another thought: the Law Society might wish to consider publishing an

1 Speech of the President of the Law Society at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, Singapore Law Gazette, January 2012, http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/president_message/President_Message_for_Jan_2012.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4.

annual pro bono league table, like in the US. This will enable the public, clients, law students and the legal community to know the rankings of law firms in terms of giving back to society.

I am also glad that Mr Wong has provided clarity to the meaning of pro bono.2 It is not just free work, but free work for our poor “neighbours” without expectation of any kind of material reward – it is the work of the Good Samaritan. It is not free work provided to clients or even to the Council of the Law Society or the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”).

For many lawyers, pro bono as a social value does not come from nature, but from nurture. In the past decade, there has been an increasing awareness of this in some developed jurisdictions. In 2005, the American Bar Association revised its accreditation standards for US law schools to require that “[a] law [school] shall offer substantial opportunities for … student participation in pro bono activities”.3 As of 2011, 21 US law schools have made pro bono work a graduation requirement.4

In the United Kingdom, a very recent report prepared by the Solicitors Pro Bono Group showed that as of 2010 “at least 61% of all law schools are now involved in pro bono activity”, as compared to 46% in 2006 – an increase of 33%.5

Australia, following the example set by Canada, has also made great strides in fostering student pro bono involvement.

We should not fall behind these jurisdictions. The Singapore Institute of Legal Education (“SILE”) has proposed, and our two law schools have agreed, to establish a mandatory pro bono programme for LL.B. students from the academic year 2013. A dry run of the programme will be carried out this year. SILE and the SAL will provide funding to start and sustain this project for three years. For foreign qualified students, they will also have to complete pro bono modules either in Part A

or Part B of their qualifying exams. I should add that Singapore Management University (“SMU”) J.D. students are required to perform 50 hours of community service attachment at a Voluntary Welfare Organisation or an organisation involved in pro bono and legal aid work.

Clients’ monies in conveyancing mattersIn August 2011, the Ministry of Law established a statutory scheme to prohibit conveyancers from holding conveyancing monies in clients’ accounts. Clients have been given three choices as to how to safeguard their funds, at different costs – (a) the setting up of conveyancing accounts with prescribed banks and for payment out from these accounts to be signed by the lawyers of both parties, (b) the payment of monies to the SAL to hold as stakeholders, and (c) the payment of monies to a special escrow account. It is rather unfortunate that the scheme requires the public to incur additional fees. Conveyancers can earn the goodwill of the public by absorbing these fees. Otherwise, the public will be seen to be paying such fees in order to protect the reputation of the Bar. Since this scheme was introduced, there has been, to my knowledge, no reported case of lawyers stealing conveyancing monies. However, until experience shows that the system is watertight, the Law Society must remain active and vigilant in conducting surprise checks on all law firms. After all, law firms hold clients’ funds from other sources as well. It is my hope that next year, we can celebrate 2012 as the first misappropriation-free year in the (recent) annals of conveyancing. The lesson to be learnt from this statutory scheme is that when it comes to safeguarding clients’ monies, the Law Society must act in the public interest, without favour to or in fear of its members.

Greater diversity in quality legal representationThis year will see the revival of the Singapore Circuit – not the Singapore Grand Prix – but

2 Speech of the President of the Law Society at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, Singapore Law Gazette, January 2012, http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/president_message/President_Message_for_Jan_2012.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4.3 American Bar Association, http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/lawschools/introduction.html (accessed on 13 January 2012).4 American Bar Association, http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/lawschools/pb_programs_chart.html (accessed on 13 January 2012).5 LawWorks, LawWorks Student Pro Bono Report 2011 http://www.lawforlife.org.uk/data/files/lawworks-student-pro-bono-report-2011-347.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4.

06

starting with younger lawyers who have less than five years of practice. The success of this scheme lies very much in the attitudes of those who have to take the courses. But the Bar is fully aware that the profession will become even more competitive in the future as the Asian economies continue their anticipated growth. CPD will not necessarily make lawyers more competitive, but at least it will make them aware of the latest developments in the law and, hopefully, raise the quality of law practice generally.

Plea bargainingYou have just heard from the Attorney-General that he has had extensive consultations with stakeholders on plea bargaining, which he has referred to, euphemistically, as “consensual negotiated outcomes in criminal proceedings”.7

The Criminal Bar has an important role in obtaining the best outcome for their clients, and the Prosecution has to ensure that the public interest is not prejudiced by too ready an attitude to dispose of cases quickly. The courts are certainly in favour of plea bargaining in order to reduce wastage of resources all round, but the disposal of prosecutions by this means must satisfy the requirement of public interest.

Relationship between the Bench, Bar and the Attorney-General’s ChambersThe working relationship between the Bench, Bar and the Attorney-General’s Chambers has been excellent in the past few years. I trust it will continue. I am happy to note that the Bar and Prosecution have, on their own initiative, started collaborative projects such as (i) a Joint Code of Practice and (ii) a Pamphlet of Rights, which provides information about the rights of accused persons and victims in a neutral manner. This is a positive development for our criminal justice system. At the inaugural Criminal Law Conference last year, the Vice-President of the Law Society, Mr Lok Vi Ming, has expressed the hope that our criminal justice system would

something older which was sidelined by the need to grow our own pool of expert advocates. We now have a sizeable pool of Senior Counsel who provide advisory, arbitral and litigation services to offshore and onshore clients. However, experience has shown that their services may not be available to the general public in times of need. We have a very large financial and business sector in terms of contributions to our GDP – it grew from 24.4% out of a nominal GDP of $158.1 billion in 2002 to 25.9% out of a nominal GDP of $303.7 billion in 2010. But, the legal services provided to these sectors are dominated by a small number of large law firms. The result is that the best litigation counsel are usually conflicted out of advising or acting for claimants against big business as they are mainly concentrated in the large firms. So we need a greater diversity of expert counsel to advise, negotiate and pursue legitimate claims in court. This is not a new problem. The Ministry of Law has consulted the Law Society and the Senior Counsel Forum on the best way forward. We can expect amending legislation to be enacted this year. The Bar can rest assured that this will not be a free for all. The courts will admit ad hoc expert counsel on the basis of need, and not simply because a litigant can afford to pay. We do not want to disadvantage litigants who cannot afford equivalent representation, nor do we want to impede the nurturing of our own Senior Counsel. So, ad hoc admission will be on a case-by-case basis, with the court doing a judicious balancing of competing interests in each case.

Mandatory Continuing Professional Development As the Attorney-General has mentioned, this year will also see the introduction of mandatory continuing professional development (“CPD”) to assist our lawyers in updating their legal knowledge in both the traditional and emerging areas of practice.6 SILE will implement CPD in phases,

07

6 Speech of the Attorney-General at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGC_Press_Release_06-Jan-12.pdf> (accessed on 13 January 2012) at para 19. 7 Speech of the Attorney-General at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGC_Press_Release_06-Jan-12.pdf> (accessed on 13 January 2012) at para 5.

Message from the Chief Justice

arbitration in Singapore. As a legal services hub, we are not in the same league as London or New York, but we will continue to grow as we have good governance, an efficient and responsive legal system, adequate legal and judicial services and the Rule of Law – all the prerequisites for growth in the most dynamic economic region in the world. As for the Rule of Law, the SAL has just posted on its website a notice that it, together with our two law schools, will hold a symposium on the Rule of Law on 14 -15 February 2012. The Rule of Law is not merely a powerful idea – it is the bedrock and foundation of any modern and civilised society. There will be prominent speakers on various aspects of the subject and you are invited to sign up for the symposium and engage them and other scholars during the panel discussions. This promises to be a lively event.

Appointment of Senior CounselThis year, the selection panel has appointed three Senior Counsel. They are (1) Mr Kannan Ramesh, (2) Mr Aedit Abdullah and (3) Professor Yeo Tiong Min, who will be our first honoris causa appointee. I congratulate them on their appointments.

ConclusionThis brings today’s proceedings to a close. On behalf of the Judiciary, let me thank you for your presence, and let us leave here with mutual wishes, and hopes, that 2012 will be an even better year than 2011 for the legal community.

Chan Sek KeongChief Justice, Supreme Court of Singapore

“evolve [into] the most just, compassionate and accessible criminal justice landscape possible”.8

We share this vision, but always bearing in mind these goals must be consonant with the greater public interest in maintaining law and order. This collaborative spirit will help to facilitate the smooth operation of the mutual discovery scheme for cases under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.

Implementation of eLitigationThis year we shall be able to implement a state-of-the-art integrated electronic litigation system, or eLitigation, as the successor to the Electronic Filing System (“EFS”). The EFS has projected our courts as a global leader in harnessing the power of information technology in our litigation process. But today every developed legal jurisdiction has some form of electronic system, some with multiple capabilities. So, we need to move ahead. Not unexpectedly, we encountered many problems of a managerial and technical nature which the project group believes it has successfully overcome. eLitigation will be more efficient and user-friendly to consumers, and should provide the litigation Bar with more features, but without substantial increases in court fees. As no new technological system is bug-free, I seek the indulgence of the Bar and court users to be patient and work through any initial teething problems. Once the system is stabilised, I am confident that there will be exponential gains in productivity all round.

State of Legal Services in SingaporeBefore I close today’s proceedings, I would like to say a few words to complement what the Attorney-General has said on Singapore as a legal services hub. We have been able to establish ourselves as a regional hub for international legal services because of sound policies supported by a strong legal community. The most recent example of how sound policy can enlarge our legal services footprint is the impressive growth of international

8 Welcome remarks by the Vice-President of the Law Society, Mr Lok Vi Ming SC, at the Criminal Law Conference, October 2011.

08

FOREWORD BY THE REGISTRAR

FOREWORD BYTHE REGISTRAR

This has been an eventful and rewarding year for the Supreme Court. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and with the unwavering support of the

Bench and our staff, we kept our commitment to provide timely and quality justice. We maintained all our service timelines, exceeded our demanding Key Performance Indicator for writ actions and achieved a consistently high clearance rate this year.

In last year’s Foreword, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s Workplan 2010-2012, with the theme of “Achieving Creative Excellence”, or “ACE it” (for the first year) and “ACE-it-2-

gether” (for the second year). The four thrusts, or agreed areas of emphasis, under Workplan 2010-2012 are Customised Training, Cross Collaboration, Knowledge Management and Paradigm Shift. These thrusts framed our targeted achievements, and it was gratifying to witness the transformation of creative ideas into reality and the realisation of our common vision. For example, the Training and Professional Development Committee was set up to institutionalise Customised Training for judicial officers of the Supreme Court, including a systematic induction programme, an international attachment programme and a mentorship programme with our Judges. We have also extended the international attachment programme to members of our staff, with the objectives of improving their technical skills and knowledge, exposing them to best practices and inspiring them to achieve world-class excellence. Further, we have incorporated e-learning under our Customised Training thrust, complemented by a Learning Management System, to facilitate additional learning online and on demand.

These attachment programmes also formed a part of our Cross Collaboration thrust, which included several notable events. One was the inaugural Joint Judicial Conference between Malaysia and Singapore, which was held in Malaysia and attended by Judges and judicial officers from both Judiciaries. Another was the

10

Foreword by the Registrar

International Conference on Electronic Litigation, organised by the Singapore Academy of Law with strong support provided by the Supreme Court, the legal community and other partners. The conference drew close to 400 participants from more than 35 jurisdictions, and featured thought leaders from Singapore and other countries. Ideas, best practices and potential pitfalls relating to the use of technology in litigation were shared freely along with possible solutions in this largely uncharted territory. These conferences exemplified our efforts at achieving Cross Collaboration with our domestic and international partners and promoting inter-organisational Knowledge Management. In addition, we continue to welcome visitors from other jurisdictions and to share our practices and experiences with them. This year, our international programme hosted some 127 study trips from more than 69 countries to the Supreme Court. As an extension of our Cross Collaboration thrust, we are developing further the idea of “Bridge Building” between different directorates and project groups with inter-dependent functions within the organisation. This will be one of the focus areas at our next workplan.

The Supreme Court’s integral mission in the administration of justice is to uphold the rule of law in Singapore. One aspect of the rule of law requires the ready availability of comprehensive and accurate information about the key

institutions in Singapore, like the Supreme Court. An initiative in this direction has been the conceptualisation and development of a technology-enabled learning space called the “Learning Court”, to showcase the workings of the Supreme Court and to educate the public about our work and what it means to be a “Living Courthouse”. We look forward to launching the Learning Court in 2012. Undoubtedly, the Learning Court will enhance and boost our Schools Engagement Programme, which received nearly 8,000 students from various schools and universities this year.

We have also ensured that our laws and practices remain relevant and accessible. We are finalising our root and branch review of the discovery regime for civil cases, after consultation with the Bar and the public. This exercise is timely as it allows us to evaluate our existing practices and to examine prospective issues that may arise in the face of technological and other advancements. We have also reviewed our Rules of Court to simplify procedures and save costs. One noteworthy amendment was to Order 53 of the Rules of Court to permit the grant of additional declaratory relief or other remedies in judicial review proceedings, without the need to commence a separate action. Other areas that were reviewed this year include the practice of concurrent expert evidence and the system of taxation and costs. We have also used technology to optimise our

11

hearings by introducing “paper-less” hearings before the Court of Appeal.

On the “heartware” side, we have already customised the concept of Customer Service to suit the unique position of the Supreme Court. The principles that we subscribe to are encapsulated in our Customer Service Creed. Following the discussions at the second Customer Service Conference held this year, we have set up a Customer Service Taskforce to reinforce and oversee our efforts in this direction.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of our partners, who are instrumental in enabling us to improve the administration of justice. This year, we collaborated with the Criminal Bar and the Senior Counsel Forum to update the long-standing Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (“LASCO”) by revising the honorarium rates, setting up a LASCO Selection Panel and extending litigation support schemes administered by the Law Society to LASCO lawyers. In addition, we worked closely together with other agencies and stakeholders on

operational matters and special projects. The working relationships within this ecosystem are probably at their strongest, as we appreciate that we are greater than the sum of our parts, united by a common aspiration to develop our legal system into one that is second to none.

The year draws to a close as we put the finishing touches to Workplan 2010-2012. True to its theme, this has been a journey of creative excellence. Looking forward, we are confident of meeting the new year and its challenges, and achieving excellence in the administration of justice in Singapore.

Foo Chee HockRegistrar, Supreme Court of Singapore

12

CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION

and criminal matters. It became Singapore’s final appellate court on 8 April 1994, when appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were abolished.

The Chief Justice sits in the Court of Appeal together with the Judges of Appeal. A Judge of the High Court may, on the request of the Chief Justice, sit in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is presided over by the Chief Justice, and in his absence, a Judge of Appeal or a Judge of the High Court.

The Court of Appeal is usually made up of three Judges. However, certain appeals, such as those against interlocutory orders, may be heard by only two Judges.

The Judiciary is one of the three branches of government in Singapore. The other two branches are the Executive and the Legislature. Under Article 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts as may be provided for by any written law for the time being in force. The Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary.

Structure of the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and hears both civil and criminal matters. The Supreme Court Bench consists of the Chief Justice, the Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners. The Supreme Court Registry is headed by the Registrar and he is assisted by the Deputy Registrar, Senior Assistant Registrars and Assistant Registrars. Justices’ Law Clerks, who work directly under the charge of the Chief Justice, assist the Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners by carrying out research on the law.

Court of AppealThe Court of Appeal hears appeals against the decisions of High Court Judges in both civil

CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION

14

High CourtThe High Court consists of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court. A Judge of Appeal may also sit in the High Court as a Judge. Proceedings in the High Court are heard before a single Judge, unless otherwise provided by any written law. The High Court may also appoint one or more persons with expertise in the subject matter of the proceedings to assist the court.

The High Court hears both civil and criminal cases as a court of first instance. The High Court also hears appeals from the decisions of District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts in civil and criminal cases, and decides points of law reserved in special cases submitted by a District Court or a Magistrates’ Court. In addition, the High Court has general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all subordinate courts in any civil or criminal matter.

The High Court has jurisdiction to hear and try any action where the defendant is served with a writ or originating summons in Singapore, or outside Singapore in the circumstances authorised by the Rules of Court, or where the defendant submits to

the jurisdiction of the High Court. Generally, except in probate matters, a civil case must be commenced in the High Court if the value of the claim exceeds $250,000. Probate matters are commenced in the High Court only if the value of the deceased’s estate exceeds $3 million or if the estate involves foreign assets. In addition, ancillary matters in family proceedings involving assets of $1.5 million or more are heard in the High Court.

The following matters are also exclusively heard by the High Court:• Admiraltymatters• Companywinding-upproceedings

15

Constitution and Jurisdiction

• Bankruptcyproceedings• Applicationsfortheadmissionof advocates and solicitors

The High Court has jurisdiction to try all offences committed in Singapore and may also try offences committed outside Singapore in certain circumstances. In criminal cases, the High Court generally tries cases where the offences are punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment or more per charge, and offences carrying the capital punishment.

The Supreme Court RegistryThe registrars perform both judicial and administrative functions. They preside over hearings of various pre-trial and post-trial matters in chambers. These include:• Bankruptcyapplications• Interlocutoryapplicationssuchas those for discovery of documents, striking out of pleadings and summary judgment• Assessmentofdamages• Taxationofcosts

They also conduct pre-trial conferences and take charge of case management,

including case scheduling. In their concurrent appointments as Magistrates or District Judges, they conduct Committal Hearings in criminal cases. Some registrars also hold appointments on tribunals and committees.

In addition, the registrars supervise the day-to-day operations of the Registry and take charge of various Registry portfolios such as personnel, finance, corporate communications and security. They also steer and drive projects involving case management, organisational excellence, information technology and knowledge management in the Judiciary.

16

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

(CPC 2010) which came into effect on 2 January 2011. The Attorney-General highlighted that prosecutors and legislative draftsmen from the Attorney-General’s Chambers were heavily involved in the drafting of the CPC 2010 and that the CPC 2010 was the product of much effort on the part of the Ministry of Law and its partner agencies.

The Attorney-General also highlighted the formation of the Economic Crimes and Governance Division, a third division in the Crime Cluster of the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which focuses on the prosecution of financial crimes and regulatory offences. To develop a closer collaborative relationship

Opening of the Legal Year

The Opening of the Legal Year ceremony was held on 7 January 2011 at the Supreme Court Auditorium. During the ceremony, the Attorney-General and the President of the Law Society of Singapore renewed their pledges of support, on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Bar respectively, to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice.

In his inaugural address at the ceremony, the Honourable Attorney-General Sundaresh Menon SC spoke about the new Criminal Procedure Code

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

18

Members of the Supreme Court Bench together with the Registrar and Senior Assistant Registrars at the Opening of the Legal Year 2011 ceremony

between the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Criminal Bar, he suggested several measures that should be adopted, such as a joint code of practice for the conduct of criminal cases, and more opportunities for young practitioners of criminal law to address issues of concern that may arise in the course of their work.

In his address, the President of the Law Society, Mr Wong Meng Meng SC, spoke about the Ministry of Law’s plan to stop the practice of lawyers holding their clients’ monies in conveyancing transactions. He noted that 159 law firms have signed on to participate in the pilot trial to place clients’ monies in special escrow accounts either with the Singapore Academy of Law or selected banks.

On the changes and opportunities for the year ahead, Mr Wong SC noted how the Law Society’s Secretariat and Council can strive to improve their work methods and systems through better financial planning and the possibility of exporting the Law

Society’s training programmes and expertise to other jurisdictions in the region. He also highlighted the Law Society’s collaborative work with the Singapore Academy of Law and the Ministry of Law, and reaffirmed the Law Society’s commitment to the continuous training and education of lawyers.

In his response, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong congratulated the Attorney-General and the President of the Law Society on their new appointments. The Chief Justice also highlighted the merits of the Criminal Case Disclosure Procedure that was introduced in the CPC 2010. The new procedure levels the playing field for the prosecution and the defence by reducing the element of surprise at trial. In addition, the Chief Justice lauded the Criminal Bar for its role and efforts in working with the judiciary and the prosecution in ensuring that defendants are accorded a fair trial.

The Chief Justice also spoke about conveyancing monies and small law firms. He emphasised the importance of keeping clients’ monies secure,

19

SignificantEvents

The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges at the Opening of the Legal Year

New Senior Counsel appointed in 2011 – Mr Roderick Edward Martin and Mr Chan Leng Sun

and noted that small law firms have a useful role in providing niche legal services to the man in the street.

The Chief Justice praised the Law Society and the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the professional development programmes for their officers, and said that the Supreme Court had put in place an intensive customised training programme for Assistant Registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks to enhance their professional skills and expertise. The Chief Justice also pledged the Supreme Court’s support to the Law Society with regard to the latter’s interest in expanding regional and international connections.

In closing, the Chief Justice announced the appointment of two new Senior Counsel, and congratulated them on their appointments.

Mass Call

A total of 257 law graduates were called to the Bar on 27 August 2011, the same day that the Presidential Elections was held. This was the first

time the Mass Call was held at the University Cultural Centre at the National University of Singapore. The newly-admitted advocates and solicitors were favoured with two addresses, one by The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and another by one of the Vice-Presidents of the Law Society of Singapore, Mr Lok Vi Ming SC.

In his address, Mr Lok SC compared the declaration made by the newly-admitted advocates and solicitors to the marriage vow and parenthood. He concluded that “the vow you take today ... binds you to a time honoured profession and to the high ideal of serving the cause of justice as advocates and solicitors of this Honourable Court. It bids you to serve and protect ... in the way only members of this profession know how; in the only way the members of this profession are entitled to.”

The Chief Justice, in agreeing with the wise counsel of Mr Lok SC, reminded the newly-admitted advocates and solicitors that “a rule-based society like Singapore will always require legal services for social justice and economic progress”. He recommended that the new

20

Lunch reception after the Opening of the Legal Year ceremony

Guests and newly-admitted advocates and solicitors at the post-event reception at Mass Call

lawyers read materials such as the Law Society of Singapore’s July 2011 issue of the Law Gazette, and the Singapore Academy of Law’s publication entitled “A Civil Practice – Good Counsel for Learned Friends”, to help them on the road in which they were about to take.

The Chief Justice also said that the education and training that lawyers receive will equip them to take on leadership roles in Singapore’s nation building. The newly-admitted advocates and solicitors will be in a position to influence the future of Singapore in the next 20 years.

International Conference on Electronic Litigation

The inaugural International Conference on Electronic Litigation was held on 11 and 12 August 2011 at the Marina Mandarin Hotel. Organised by the Singapore Academy of Law, the Conference was supported by the Supreme Court, with the

Honourable Justice Lee Seiu Kin chairing the organising committee.

In addition to providing logistical and administrative support for the Conference, the Supreme Court also contributed a host of speakers to the Conference. The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong gave the opening address, while Justice Lee Seiu Kin addressed the Conference as the organising chairman. The Honourable Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, Registrar Foo Chee Hock and Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin also spoke at the Conference.

There was also an impressive line-up of world-renowned speakers such as the Right Honourable Lord Justice Rupert Jackson, Judge of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales; Senior Master Steven Whitaker of the High Court of England and Wales; Mr Stephen Mason, renowned author of publications on electronic litigation; and a number of Senior Counsel. The Conference attracted close to 400 participants

21

Newly-admitted advocates and solicitors at Mass Call

SignificantEvents

from more than 35 jurisdictions, with more than 60 members from foreign Judiciaries.

During the Conference, participants gained insights into various issues facing this rapidly evolving field, including electronic discovery obligations, developments in the law on electronic discovery in various jurisdictions, preservation of evidence, incorporation of technology in court advocacy, and the impact of social media on civil litigation. The Conference culminated in a mock trial and arbitration session held concurrently at the Supreme Court and Maxwell Chambers where participants had the opportunity to experience the latest technology on-site.

The Conference successfully promoted the Supreme Court of Singapore as one of the key jurisdictions in electronic litigation, and advanced Singapore’s positioning as a leading commercial

centre. As a clear sign of its success, the Singapore Academy of Law plans to hold the Conference once every three years.

Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) Tea

The Supreme Court Registry organised the LASCO tea to thank members of the Criminal Bar for their support of LASCO. Held on 18 November 2011 at the Supreme

Court Viewing Gallery, the tea was well-attended by members of the Supreme Court Bench, Supreme Court Registry, and Law Society of Singapore. Close to 60 members of the Criminal Bar were also present.

The tea kicked off with a brief address by The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who spoke about the LASCO Selection Panel which oversees the emplacement of lawyers on LASCO and assignment of counsel to specific cases.

Following the Chief Justice’s address, the Bench and the Criminal Bar interacted over refreshments. It is hoped that such events will foster a deeper sense of collegiality amongst LASCO counsel and encourage greater participation in LASCO.

22

The mock electronic trial held at the Supreme Court during the International Conference on Electronic Litigation

THE SUPREME COURT BENCH

THE SUPREME COURT BENCH

JUDGES OF APPEAL

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

Justice Chao Hick Tin Justice Andrew PhangBoon Leong

Justice V K Rajah

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Justice Lai Siu Chiu Justice Judith Prakash

Justice Tan Lee Meng

JUDGES

Justice Choo Han Teck Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean

Justice Woo Bih Li Justice Tay Yong Kwang Justice Andrew Ang

Justice Lee Seiu Kin Justice Chan Seng Onn Justice Philip Nalliah Pillai

Justice Quentin Loh Sze-On

Justice Steven Chong Horng Siong

Justice Kan Ting Chiu(retired on 27 August 2011)

Retirement of the Honourable Justice Kan Ting Chiu

Justice Kan Ting Chiu, Supreme Court Judge, retired on 27 August 2011 upon reaching the age of 65. He contributed a total of 26 years of distinguished service in various appointments within the Singapore public service.

Throughout his legal career, Justice Kan made outstanding contributions to the Supreme Court and the legal profession. Justice Kan was a Council Member of the Law Society of Singapore from 1983 to 1984. From 1993 to 2005, he was a member of the Board of Legal Education, a body which provided for the training and examination of law graduates seeking admission to the Singapore Bar. Since 1999, Justice Kan served as Chairman of the Singapore Academy of Law’s Legal Heritage Committee.

To thank him for his services to the Supreme Court, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong hosted a farewell dinner at the Grand Copthorne Hotel which was attended by members of the Supreme Court Bench.

The registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks also held a farewell tea and farewell lunch for Justice Kan respectively.

Changes to the Bench

26

Justice Kan Ting Chiu

The idea for the Conference was first mooted by the Honourable Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, to improve the already close relationship between the two Judiciaries and to allow the two Judiciaries to learn from each other. With approval from the two Chief Justices, the organisation of the Conference was led by the Honourable Puan Nallini Pathmanathan and the Honourable Justice Steven Chong from the Malaysian and Singapore Judiciaries respectively.

Joint Judicial Conference hosted by the Malaysian Judiciary

The Malaysian Judiciary hosted the inaugural Joint Judicial Conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia on 19 March 2011. Altogether, 15 members of the Singapore Judiciary, including The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, met up with their counterparts from the Malaysian Judiciary.

The Supreme Court Bench

27

Highlights of Judges’ Events

The Malaysian and Singapore Judiciaries at the Joint Judicial Conference

Each Judiciary presented two papers at the Conference. The Malaysian Judiciary shared its experiences on the setting up of the New Commercial Court – a highly successful initiative that the Malaysian Judiciary implemented to clear its backlog of cases. The Honourable Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and the Honourable Justice Lee Seiu Kin represented the Singapore Judiciary to discuss significant civil reforms in Singapore and the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 respectively.

All participants found the Conference extremely useful, particularly since many of the problems faced were not unique to each jurisdiction. Members of both Judiciaries also found time to bond over meals, informal meetings and other activities.

Dinner hosted by the Forum of Senior Counsel

The Supreme Court Bench was invited to a dinner hosted by the Forum of Senior Counsel on 18 July 2011. 14 members of the Supreme Court Bench and almost 30 Senior Counsel attended the dinner.

At the dinner, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong commended the Senior Counsel for their pro bono

28

work and their efforts at reaching out and interacting with the general public. He commented that it would take time for the Forum of Senior Counsel to grow as an institution and become part of the public’s consciousness. He said that it was important that the Forum interact with the media to help the public better understand its pro bono work.

The Chief Justice also pointed out that the next decade would be crucial for raising the standards of the Bar. To earn the confidence and trust of the public, the best values, practices and traditions of the Bar must be protected and strengthened. The Senior Counsel, by their own behaviour and conduct, have to imbue young lawyers under their tutelage with the values and traditions of the profession.

The Chief Justice stressed that the state of the Criminal Bar needs to be looked into seriously. He noted that while the number of criminal cases rose significantly last year, the Criminal Bar has not been expanding in the last decade. To boost the Criminal Bar, he suggested that every Senior Counsel take on at least one criminal case every year. Another possibility was for a senior criminal lawyer to start a criminal law chamber.

The 14th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific

The 14th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific was hosted by the Supreme Court of Korea in Seoul from 12 to 16 June 2011. The Conference was attended by Chief Justices and Judges from 37 different nations across the Asia-Pacific region.

The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was invited to chair Session One of the Conference, entitled “The Application of Technology to the Courts – Present and Future Developments”, while the Chief Justice of the Republic of Korea, the Honourable Lee Yong-Hoon, spoke on “The Judiciary in the Information Age – The Present State and The Future Direction”.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was also invited to deliver a paper on the topic “Pursuing Efficiency and Achieving Court Excellence – The Singapore Experience”. In his speech, he spoke about the broader concept of court excellence, which encompassed more than just court efficiency and case management. It also included values such as the independence of the Judiciary, fairness and integrity. He said the Singapore Judiciary has played a “first mover” role in trying to establish

The Supreme Court Bench

29

the notion of court excellence, such as by formulating the International Framework for Court Excellence with partners from other jurisdictions.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong concluded his presentation by emphasising that serving the needs of justice is the first and foremost goal of the Singapore Judiciary and that it is for this reason that initiatives to institutionalise efficiency and excellence are pursued with vigour.

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event6 Jan CJ Chan Sek Keong

Andrew Phang JASingapore Global Forum on Intellectual Property 2011

• Andrew Phang JA was a panel speaker for the session entitled “View from the Bench – The Next Ten Years in Intellectual Property”

26 – 28 Jan Philip Pillai J Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

World Justice Project Asia Pacific Rule of Law Conference

5 – 9 Feb CJ Chan Sek Keong Hyderabad, India Patron Chief Justices’ Meeting and 17th Commonwealth Law Conference

18 Feb CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Subordinate Courts Workplan 2011• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote

address at the Workplan

24 Feb CJ Chan Sek KeongAndrew Phang JAV K Rajah JAPhilip Pillai JQuentin Loh J

Singapore Singapore Academy of Law Conference 2011 Developments in Singapore Law 2006-2010: Trends and Perspectives• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening

address• Andrew Phang JA chaired the panel

discussion entitled “Contract Law”• V K Rajah JA chaired a speakers’ panel on

“Arbitration Law and Practice”• Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled

“Recent Singapore Decisions and Trends in the Arbitration World”

26 Feb – 6 Mar

Tay Yong Kwang J Doha, Qatar Abu Dhabi and Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Study Visit to the Middle East (Qatar and the United Arab Emirates)

3 – 6 Mar Chao Hick Tin JALee Seiu Kin J

Pattaya, Thailand ASEAN Law Association 33rd Governing Council Meeting• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening

address

12 Mar CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Ninth United Nations Commission on International Trade Law / International Insolvency Institute / World Bank Multinational Judicial Colloquium on Cross-Border Insolvency• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote

address on “Cross-Border Insolvency Issues Affecting Singapore”

18 – 20 Mar

CJ Chan Sek KeongChao Hick Tin JAAndrew Phang JAV K Rajah JALai Siu Chiu JJudith Prakash JBelinda Ang JWoo Bih Li JLee Seiu Kin JPhilip Pillai JQuentin Loh JSteven Chong J

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Joint Judicial Conference• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address• Chao Hick Tin JA delivered a paper entitled

“Recent Significant Reforms to the Civil Litigation Process in Singapore”

• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered a paper entitled “The CPC 2010 – A Watershed in the Development of Singapore’s Criminal Justice Framework”

Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events

30

The Supreme Court Bench

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event20 – 24

MarV K Rajah JASteven Chong J

Sydney, Australia Judicial Seminar on Commercial Litigation• V K Rajah JA delivered a paper entitled

“Addressing Caseload Issues in the Aftermath of an Economic Crisis – The Singapore Experience”

• Steven Chong J delivered a paper entitled “Arbitration Law – Reflections on Recent Singapore Developments”

25 Apr Steven Chong J Singapore Singapore Management University • Steven Chong J delivered a talk entitled

“Arbitration Law – The Singapore Experience”

27 Apr V K Rajah JA Singapore Third Association of Criminal Lawyers Annual Lecture

29 Apr – 1 May

CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Annual Bench and Bar Games• CJ Chan Sek Keong led the Singapore

delegation at the Games

5 May CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Seventh China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General Conference• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the welcome

address to the conference delegates

5 – 7 May Andrew Phang JAPhilip Pillai J

Sydney, Australia International Commercial Law, Litigation and Arbitration Conference • Andrew Phang JA delivered a paper entitled

“The Impact of International Conventions and Model Laws on Domestic Commercial Law – The Singapore Experience”

18 – 22 May

Quentin Loh J St. Petersburg, Russia

St. Petersburg International Legal Forum• Quentin Loh J delivered a paper entitled

“The Court’s Role as a Guardian of Business – Enhancing Accessibility to Justice, Efficiency of Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution”

19 May CJ Chan Sek KeongAndrew Phang JAV K Rajah JA

Singapore Singapore Management University Yong Pung How Professorship of Law Lecture

22 – 26 May

Andrew Ang J Brussels, Belgium

6th International Judges Conference

31 May V K Rajah JA Singapore Law Society Biennale Lecture 2011

1 Jun Quentin Loh J Singapore Singapore International Arbitration Forum 2011• Quentin Loh J chaired the discussion on

“Insurance Arbitration – Lessons from the Financial Crisis”

10 – 11 Jun

Andrew Phang JA Sabah, Malaysia Journal of Contract Law Conference – Commercial Contract Law: Malaysian andInternational Perspectives• Andrew Phang JA delivered a paper entitled

“Recent Developments in Singapore Contract Law – The Search for Principle”

31

32

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event12 – 16 Jun CJ Chan Sek Keong Seoul, Korea 14th Conference of the Chief Justices of Asia and

the Pacific• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a paper entitled

“Pursuing Efficiency and Achieving Court Excellence – The Singapore Experience”

8 – 10 Jul Lee Seiu Kin J Johannesburg, South Africa

Access to Justice Conference• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered two papers entitled

“Ensuring Access to Justice Through Judicial Education” and “Optimising Technology in Litigation Process”

20 – 22 Jul Quentin Loh J Jakarta,Indonesia

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Singapore – the Preferred Choice for Indonesian Cross-Border Businesses• Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled

“Alternative Dispute Resolution in Singapore – An Option for Indonesian Cross-Border Businesses”

22 – 24 Jul Philip Pillai J New Delhi, India International Seminar on Global Environment and Disaster Management: Law and Society• Philip Pillai J delivered a paper entitled

“Singapore Case Study – Management of SARS”

29 Jul CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Singapore Management University School of Law Commencement Ceremony 2011• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the

commencement address at the ceremony

1 Aug Steven Chong J Singapore National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law Freshmen Inauguration Ceremony 2011• Steven Chong J delivered a speech at the

ceremony

4 Aug V K Rajah JA Singapore Herbert Smith – Singapore Management University Asian Arbitration Lecture

11 – 12 Aug

CJ Chan Sek KeongChao Hick Tin JAV K Rajah JALee Seiu Kin J

Singapore International Conference on Electronic Litigation• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening

address to the conference delegates• V K Rajah JA delivered the keynote address

on “The Incorporation of Technology in Court Advocacy”

• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening speech as the Conference Chairman

27 Aug CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Mass Call for Admission of Advocates and Solicitors• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address to

the newly-admitted Advocates and Solicitors

7 – 9 Sep Chan Seng Onn J Sydney, Australia Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) Criminal Justice in Australia and New Zealand – Issues and the Challenges for Judicial Administration Conference

9 Sep CJ Chan Sek Keong Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture

The Supreme Court Bench

33

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event9 Sep Andrew Phang JA Singapore Launch of Singapore Mediation Charter

• Andrew Phang JA participated as the Guest of Honour at the launch of the Singapore Mediation Charter

14 – 15 Sep Judith Prakash J Steven Chong J

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Malaysian Shipping Conference 2011

20 Sep Quentin Loh J Singapore Singapore Institute of Arbitrators Commercial Arbitration Symposium 2011• Quentin Loh J co-chaired the session “The

Courts – Role, Support and Enforcement” with Dr. Michael Pryles (Chairman, Singapore International Arbitration Centre)

22 – 23 Sep Philip Pillai J Vladivostok, Russia

International Forum of the Asia-Pacific Countries• Philip Pillai J delivered a paper entitled

“Singapore Contract Law – The English Common Law Legacy in Asia’s Financial and Business Centre”

25 – 28 Sep Chao Hick Tin JA Lee Seiu Kin J

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

5th China-ASEAN Forum

28 Sep CJ Chan Sek KeongChao Hick Tin JAAndrew Phang JAV K Rajah JALai Siu Chiu JJudith Prakash JTan Lee Meng JBelinda Ang JWoo Bih Li JTay Yong Kwang JLee Seiu Kin JChan Seng Onn JPhilip Pillai JQuentin Loh JSteven Chong J

Singapore 14th Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the welcome

address

1 Oct CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore The Law Awareness Project 2011 – Launch of “Law Cares” – A Law Society Initiative for the Elderly • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening

address

7 Oct CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Code of Practice Seminar on the Mental Capacity Act: Rethinking Caregiving • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote

address

13 Oct CJ Chan Sek KeongV K Rajah JAChoo Han Teck JSteven Chong J

Singapore Criminal Law Conference 2011• V K Rajah JA chaired the panel discussion

entitled “Sentencing Options – What Lies Beyond Jails and Fines?”

• Choo Han Teck J chaired a panel discussion entitled “Criminal Litigation – Advocacy and Appeals”

• Steven Chong J chaired a panel discussion entitled “Criminal Law and Practice – A New Opportunity”

19 – 22 Oct Steven Chong J Melbourne, Australia

Engaging the Asian Economies – Law & Practice 2011• Steven Chong J delivered a paper entitled

“Investing Time in Asia – Strategies for Fruitful Co-operation”

34

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event20 Oct Lee Seiu Kin J Singapore First National Conference on Construction

Adjudication• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the keynote address

20 – 25 Oct

CJ Chan Sek Keong V K Rajah JA

London, UK Careers@Singapore: Legal Services• CJ Chan Sek Keong and V K Rajah JA met

with Singapore law students in the United Kingdom

• V K Rajah JA presented a paper entitled “An Overview of the Legal Landscape in Singapore – Past, Present, Future”

31 Oct V K Rajah JA Singapore Singapore Academy of Law Panel Discussion: What kind of Lawyer are you? Differentiating yourself from the pack!• V K Rajah JA chaired the panel discussion

1 Nov Quentin Loh J Singapore Arbitration Dialogue organised by the Ministry of Law•QuentinLohJdeliveredaspeechentitled “The Role of Courts Within the Arbitration Eco-system”

2 - 4 Nov Philip Pillai J Seoul, Korea OECD-Korea Policy Centre, Competition Programme, Workshop for Judges in the Asian Region on Competition Law

10 Nov Steven Chong J Singapore Attorney-General’s Chambers’ talk for Legal Service Officers and Assistant Public Prosecutors • Steven Chong J spoke on “The Role and

Duties of a Prosecutor – The Lawyer Who Never “Loses” a Case, Whether Conviction or Acquittal”

18 Nov Andrew Phang JA Singapore Court Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner 2011• Andrew Phang JA delivered an address

24 – 26 Nov

Quentin Loh J Montreal, Canada

UNCITRAL Model Law on InternationalCommercial Arbitration• Quentin Loh J delivered a paper entitled

“The Interpretive Significance of the International Normative Context in Singapore’s International Arbitration Law”

6 – 7 Dec Philip Pillai J Jakarta, Indonesia

Roundtable for ASEAN Chief Justices and Senior Judiciary on Environmental Law and Enforcement• Philip Pillai J delivered a paper on

“Singapore: The Singapore Clean Green City Matrix: The Singapore dynamic of governance, social policy, law and enforcement”

INTERNATIONAL PROFILE

Hock paid an official visit to the Hong Kong Courts from 14 to 17 February 2011.

During the visit, the delegates engaged in dialogues with their Hong Kong counterparts on experiences in the administration of justice. Apart from uncovering the similarities and differences in judicial administration between the two jurisdictions, the Singapore delegation also delivered a presentation on the Electronic Filing System. The visit provided a good opportunity for fruitful interaction between the delegation and the Hong Kong Judiciary.

Learning Visit to Qatar and UAEA delegation led by the Honourable Justice Tay Yong Kwang visited the Qatari and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) Courts from 26 February to 6 March 2011.

In Doha, the delegation met with the Chief Justice of Qatar, His Excellency Masood bin Al-Ameri. The delegation learnt much about the Qatari legal system through a series of briefings as well as a tour of the courts. The delegation then gave a presentation on Singapore’s case management processes and the use of information technology in the Singapore courts.

The delegation also travelled to the UAE and visited the Courts of Abu Dhabi and Dubai. In Abu Dhabi, they met with the Minister of Justice Dr Hadef

Rankings in International Surveys

In 2011, Singapore continued to do well in international surveys conducted by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) and the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

In the 2011 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, Singapore once again topped the rankings for the category “Legal and Regulatory Framework”. Hong Kong and Australia were ranked second and third respectively. Singapore also came in 12th out of 59 countries under the category of “Justice”, which looks at whether justice is fairly administered in a country.

In the latest PERC report published in 2011, Singapore ranked second out of the 12 Asian countries that were surveyed, behind Hong Kong but ahead of Japan. This ranking was based on a survey of expatriates’ perceptions of different judicial systems in Asia.

Overseas Conferences, Attachments and Speaking Engagements

Visit to the Hong Kong CourtsTo strengthen the relationship with the Hong Kong Judiciary, a delegation led by Registrar Foo Chee

INTERNATIONAL PROFILE

36

bin Jua’an Al Dhaheri, and the President and Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court, the Honourable Dr Abdel Wahab Abdool. There was a vibrant exchange of ideas at a roundtable discussion and a dinner presentation. In Dubai, the delegation met with the Director General of the Dubai courts, His Excellency Dr Ahmed Saeed bin Hezeem Al Suwaidi, who gave them insights on the various innovations undertaken by the Dubai courts. The delegation also visited the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) courts where His Excellency Justice Ali Al Madhani, His Excellency Justice Omar Al Muhairi, and the Registrar of DIFC, Mark Beer, shared about the legal regime of the DIFC with the group.

“Our learning visit to Qatar and the UAE was an enjoyable and fruitful one. We were introduced to the legal systems of Qatar and the UAE, and there was an interesting exchange of ideas on a variety of topics like the use of IT in the courts and case management. On a personal note, we must thank our hosts for their wonderful hospitality! We will fondly remember the Arabian coffee, dates and the visits to the Pearl, Katara and Burj Khalifa.”- AR Lionel Leo Attachment to Hong Kong JudiciaryAssistant Registrars Eunice Chua and Paul Chan were attached to the Hong Kong Judiciary

in June 2011. They spent two days each with the Hong Kong District Court and High Court, and one day at the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. They sat in for case management hearings, through which they gained deeper understanding of how the Hong Kong Courts managed and prepared cases for trials, as well as observed how the Hong Kong Masters handled difficult litigants. They also had the opportunity to sit in for bankruptcy hearings and legal aid appeal hearings.

Assistant Registrars Eunice Chua and Paul Chan also had discussions with many Judges and judicial officers including the Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, Registrar Simon Kwang of the Court of Final Appeal, Registrar Lung Kim-wan of the High Court, and Registrar Clement Lee of the District Court.

Through these interaction opportunities, they learnt about the challenges that the Hong Kong Judiciary face, for example, dealing with the rising costs of litigation as well as unmeritorious applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and the strategies adopted to deal with those challenges. They also shared with the Hong Kong Judiciary Singapore’s experience with its Electronic Filing System as well as other technological initiatives employed to facilitate the litigation process. Finally, they had the opportunity to visit the Mediation Information

37

InternationalProfile

“We realised from this experience how much the Supreme Court of Singapore achieved by implementing an electronic process. The various judicial officers from the Queen’s Bench Division we met with expressed their hope for something similar to be implemented there. We appreciate being given the opportunity to learn from the Queen’s Counsel who taught or took classes with us at the Civil Law Seminar.” - AR Jordan Tan and AR Sngeeta Devi

Attachment to the Royal Courts of Justice in the United KingdomAssistant Registrars Jordan Tan and Sngeeta Devi, together with the Deputy Director of the Legal Directorate, Ms Jasmine Ong, were attached to the Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom (UK) for two weeks, from end June until early July 2011. During their attachment, the Assistant Registrars sat in with several Queen’s Bench Masters, including Senior Master Steven Whitaker, for chamber hearings, to observe how interlocutory applications are conducted. Ms Jasmine Ong observed the processes of the various registries at the court. The delegation also visited the Supreme Court, the Central London Civil Justice Centre and the Willesden County Court during their attachment.

For two weeks in November, a similar attachment programme to the Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK was arranged for Assistant Registrars Tan Sze Yao

Office and the Centre for Litigants located in the Hong Kong High Court.

“Observing how the Hong Kong Judiciary handled similar matters, for example bankruptcy, case management, in different ways gave me a fresh insight into the rules of civil procedure in Singapore and provoked me to think about how their purposes can be best achieved.” - AR Eunice Chua

The attachment was invaluable in demonstrating how a modern, cosmopolitan state can forge a legal identity uniquely suited to the needs of its people.”- AR Paul Chan

Civil Law Seminar organised by the Judicial College in the United KingdomAssistant Registrars Jordan Tan and Sngeeta Devi attended a three-day Civil Law Seminar organised by the Judicial College in the United Kingdom (UK) in June 2011. The Civil Law Seminar was attended by a significant number of judges in the UK. The two Assistant Registrars had the invaluable opportunity to interact with these judges and learn from their experiences. Participants of the Civil Law Seminar were able to choose from a variety of modules.

The Assistant Registrars attended classes on topics such as Evidence in the Civil Court and Damages. These interactive classes gave them the opportunity to compare and contrast the law in the UK with that of Singapore.

38

Lincoln’s Inn Alumni Association of Malaysia in association with London’s Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, the Senior Tutor of the Course was Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, and the Course Director was Judge Alan Saggerson.

Attachment to Technology and Construction Court in the United KingdomSenior Assistant Registrar Teh Hwee Hwee and Assistant Registrar Terence Tan were attached to the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in London for a week in November 2011. During their attachment, they sat in with Mr Justice Vivian Ramsey and several other TCC Judges during open court and chamber hearings to observe how TCC cases are managed. They also sat in with Lord Justice Bernard Anthony Rix, Lord Justice Stephen Miles Tomlinson and Sir George Mark Waller for a TCC appeal in the Court of Appeal (Queen’s Bench Division). In addition, they also visited the UK Supreme Court, Royal Courts of Justice and the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey). Finally, they also had the opportunity to tour and learn about the purpose-built facilities of the newly constructed Rolls Building.

and Elaine Chew, and Director of the Legal Directorate, Ms Carol Liew. In addition, the delegation visited the LexisNexis Academy and the recently completed Rolls Building Court Complex (Rolls Building) which brings under one roof the whole of the English High Court’s judicial specialist expertise in London for the determination of high value construction, financial, business and property disputes. The Rolls Building was officially opened on 7 December 2011.

Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture and Advocacy Training CourseTogether with The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Assistant Registrars Ang Feng Qian and Shaun Leong Li Shiong represented the Supreme Court at the Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 9 September 2011. The event was graced by the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Bin Tun Azmi. The Right Honourable Lord Robert Walker of Gestingthorpe, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, delivered an eminently insightful speech on “National Security and the Rule of Law – A Lesson from the Past”.

The two Assistant Registrars also participated in the Advocacy Training Course held at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex between 10 and 12 September 2011, and were awarded Certificates of Completion. Organised by the

InternationalProfile

39

Visits by Distinguished Guests

40

Highlighted below are some of the distinguished guests who visited the Supreme Court in 2011

18 Jan The Honourable Mr Sobchok Sukharomna, President of the Supreme Court of Thailand

14 Mar The Honourable Mr Anthony Smellie, Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands

16 Mar The Honourable Prof. Dr Heinz Vallender, Chief Justice of the Cologne Bankruptcy Court, Germany

12 Apr Mr David Ware, CEO of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia

21 Apr Her Excellency Aurelia Frick, Foreign Minister of Liechtenstein

25 Apr His Excellency Rauff Hakeem, Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka

20 Jul The Honourable Mr Anand Ramlogan, Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago

28 Sep The Honourable Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Bin Tun Azmi, Former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia

31 Oct Mr Jagdish Sharan Verma, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India

11 Nov The Honourable Md Muzammel Hossain, Chief Justice of Bangladesh

(L-R) Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim, Registrar Foo Chee Hock, Chief Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria David Ware and Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin

Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka His Excellency Rauff Hakeem and his delegation calling on The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

• Highlight areas of focus for the coming year

• Review and celebrate the achievements of FY2010

• Introduce the concept of Design Thinking

The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong graced the occasion and presented various awards to the staff, such as the National Day Award, Excellent Service Award and Star Service Award. He also gave away prizes to the winning Work Improvement Teams.

Supreme Court Staff Workplan SeminarThe Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar 2011 was held on 19 April 2011. The Seminar provided an opportunity for staff to take stock of the Supreme Court’s Workplan over a two-year planning cycle. Themed “ACE-it-2-gether”, staff were introduced to the concept of Design Thinking as a possible pathway towards transformative innovation.

The objectives of the seminar were to: • Communicate strategic objectives and key

initiatives for Financial Year (FY) 2011

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

42

Registrar Foo Chee Hock delivering his speech at the Staff Workplan Seminar 2011

Supreme Court staff viewing the exhibits set up during the Staff Workplan Seminar 2011

Legal ColloquiumOn 14 October 2011, registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks (JLCs) participated in the Supreme Court’s Legal Colloquium – an annual corporate retreat for the registrars and JLCs.

Kicking off the Colloquium, the JLCs gave an update on recent cases heard in the Supreme

Court. It was an interactive session where the audience and the presenters actively engaged in discussions. This was followed by a quiz on legal knowledge and trivia.

The highlight of the day was the indoor simulated skydive experience in a wind tunnel at iFly, one of the latest attractions at Sentosa. The participants

43

Strategic Management

Registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks at iFly in Sentosa

The Conference itself was a light-hearted event which consisted of two fun and thought-provoking skits performed by combined directorate teams which reiterated the importance of good customer service. Other programmes included video-clips featuring interviews with the Supreme Court’s PS21 Star Service Award winners, Mr Chia Kum Khuen and Mr Shabab s/o Ali Qadir, as well as onstage ‘live’ sharing by Mr Jimmy Liew and Mr Lim

then braved a slight drizzle and took a “skyride” to the top of a hill and raced down a steep slope in a sled-like vehicle known as a “Luge”.

Customer Service ConferenceThe second Customer Service Conference of the Supreme Court was held on 19 October 2011, two years after the inaugural conference in 2009. The theme “M.A.D again about Customer Service” re-affirmed the Supreme Court’s commitment to the ideals of the first Customer Service Conference.

The Conference was preceded by emails containing quizzes to staff of the Supreme Court, to enhance awareness of the Supreme Court’s Customer Service Creed. The organising committee also staged a road-show to test the various directorates on how well they remembered the Customer Service Creed.

44

Expert corner negotiations at the “Luge”

Singing their hearts out about Customer Service, the Supreme Court way

The winning team of the Customer Service Conference skit contest

To close the event, Registrar Foo Chee Hock and Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim handed out prizes to the winners of the various competitions.

Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource System (STARS)The Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource System (STARS) is a user-friendly database that promotes uniformity in the interpretation of

Cher Yeow on good customer service rendered to external customers of the Supreme Court.

There was also a song-writing and singing competition, where participants sang songs with altered lyrics pertaining to customer service. Some participants even wrote original songs for the event. Their performances were indeed deserving of praise and provided much entertainment for those who attended the Conference.

45

The happy participants at the Customer Service Conference

Strategic Management

To publicise the availability of STARS to Government agencies and interested organisations, STARS on Web was launched on the Supreme Court website in October 2011. It provides Web-users with useful information on STARS and allows them to try out the unique features online.

Organisational AccoladesIn 2011, the Supreme Court was conferred the following awards:

Total Defence Award - Distinguished Defence Partner Award - Conferred by the Ministry of Defence in recognition of outstanding support for Total Defence.

Energy Smart Office Award- Conferred by the National Environment Agency in recognition of efforts taken to promote environmental sustainability.

BCA Green Mark for Buildings Award – Gold- Conferred by the Building and Construction Authority in recognition of excellence in the built environment in the areas of safety, quality, sustainability and user-friendliness.

common terms and expressions in High Court proceedings. Previously, court interpreters relied on their personal hard copy glossaries when they carried out translations. With STARS, interpreters now have quick access to a central database that makes translating difficult or technical terms easier and faster.

STARS initially launched with a database comprising close to 7,000 terms in seven main categories - Legal, Commerce, Building and Construction, Information Technology, Court Greetings, Medical and Latin terms. The database was expanded to cover over 13,000 additional terms in eight new categories - Logistics, Management, Maritime, Psychology, Securities, Planning and Development, Finance and Insurance and Police Terms.

STARS is made more unique by the fact that it provides audio files of the terms in the four major languages used in Singapore. Accessing the audio files in the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages is now a click away.

The Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource System (STARS)

46

TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE

The breakdown of the caseload and disposal of the civil and criminal proceedings for 2011 are shown in the following charts. The resultant clearance rates are reflected accordingly.

Caseload and Disposal in 2011In 2011, the Supreme Court received a total of 13,146 new civil and criminal matters. In the same period, a total of 12,859 matters were disposed of. The clearance rate# for all civil and criminal matters for 2011 was 98%.

Workload Statistics

48# The percentage stated may exceed 100% when the case disposal figure is greater than the filing figure. Disposal figures may include cases filed in previous year(s) which were disposed of in the current year.

104%106%

111%

81% 128%

Criminal Jurisdiction

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

50

No.

of C

ases

Filed Disposed Clearance Rate

Criminal Cases Criminal Motions*

Magistrate’s Appeals

Criminal Revisions

Criminal Appeals

89

244

16 18

52

94

270

1323

* Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.

Civil Jurisdiction

97% 97%

89% 98%136%

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

5,757

No.

of C

ases

Civil Originating Processes

Civil Interlocutory Applications

Appeals before the High Court

Appeals before the Court of

Appeal

Applications before the Court

of Appeal

6,032

698159 83

5,6095,876

624 217 81

Filed Disposed Clearance Rate

TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE

49

Timeliness of Justice

The clearance rate for all civil and criminal matters in 2011 was 98%, the same as for 2010.

A comparison of caseload and disposal between 2011 and 2010 is illustrated in the charts that follow.

Caseload and Disposal TrendsThe volume of cases in 2011 was about 2% lower than that for 2010. This was attributable to the lower volume of civil and criminal appellate matters received in 2011.

Civil Jurisdiction

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

5,523

No.

of C

ases

File

d

Civil Originating Processes

CivilInterlocutory Applications

Appeals before the High

Court

Appeals before the Court

of Appeal

Applications before the Court

of Appeal

6,248

781242 125

5,7576,032

698159 83

2010 2011

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

5,703

No.

of C

ases

Dis

pose

d O

f

Civil Originating Processes

CivilInterlocutory Applications

Appeals before the High

Court

Appeals before the Court

of Appeal

Applications before the Court

of Appeal

5,938

776186 119

5,6095,876

624 217 81

2010 2011

50

Criminal Jurisdiction350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

36

No.

of C

ases

File

d

Criminal Cases Criminal Motions*

Magistrate’s Appeals

Criminal Revisions

Criminal Appeals

56

309

1330

50

89

244

16 18

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

44

No.

of C

ases

Dis

pose

d O

f

48

278

1332

52

94

270

1323

* Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.

Criminal Cases Criminal Motions*

Magistrate’s Appeals

Criminal Revisions

Criminal Appeals

2010 2011

2010 2011

51

past few years, the targets set have all been consistently achieved.

The average timelines for waiting periods achieved are set out in the tables that follow for the corresponding years of 2010 and 2011. In particular, trial dates for civil cases were given within four weeks of the date of set down.

Targets for waiting periods in various court processes have been set as part of the Supreme Court’s commitment to the provision of quality public service. These targets are reviewed annually to ensure that they are realistic and match international benchmarks. The Supreme Court endeavours to achieve 90% compliance with all targets set. For the

Original Civil Jurisdiction

* “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.# This item refers to applications for bankruptcy orders (known as bankruptcy petitions prior to April 2006) only.

Type of ProceedingsTarget set by Department

Achievement*

2010 2011

Trials in Writ Action 8 weeks from the date of set down to trial

2.9 weeks 3.1 weeks

Originating Summonses (OS)

(i) Inter partes

(ii) Ex parte

5 weeks from the date of filing of the OS

3 weeks from the date of filing of the OS

4.4 weeks

1.3 weeks

4.3 weeks

1.0 week

Bankruptcy OS# 6 weeks from the date of filing of the OS

3.2 weeks

3.4 weeks

Company Winding-Up OS 4 weeks from the date of filing of the OS

3.5 weeks 3.4 weeks

Probate OS 5 weeks from the date of filing of the OS

3.5 weeks 4.1 weeks

Waiting Periods

Timeliness of Justice

Original Criminal Jurisdiction

* “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.# This item refers to applications for discharge only.

Type of ProceedingsTarget set by Department

Achievement*

2010 2011

Summonses (SUM) (i) Summonses for summary

judgment pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court

(ii) All other summonses

5 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM(statutory minimum period of 4.4 weeks)

3 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM

4.9 weeks

Before Judge

1.3 weeks

Before Registrar1.2 weeks

4.6 weeks

Before Judge

1.9 weeks

Before Registrar1.2 weeks

Probate SUM 4 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM

2.5 weeks 3.1 weeks

Bankruptcy SUM# 4 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM(statutory minimum period of 3 weeks)

3.9 weeks 3.9 weeks

Type of ProceedingsTarget set by Department

Achievement*

2010 2011

Trials of Criminal Cases 6 weeks from the date of the preliminary inquiry

5.4 weeks 5.0 weeks

52

Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction

Appellate Civil Jurisdiction

Type of ProceedingsTarget set by Department

Achievement*

2010 2011

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

(i) Civil appeals heard before 2 Judges

(ii) Civil appeals heard before 3 Judges

Ready to be heard within 12 weeks from the date of notification to collect the record of proceedings (ROP)

Ready to be heard within 16 weeks from the date of notification to collect the ROP

12.0 weeks

16.0 weeks

12.0 weeks

15.9 weeks

Registrar’s Appeals to the High Court Judge in Chambers

3 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal

4 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal (against assessment of damages)

2.0 weeks

2.6 weeks

2.2 weeks

2.8 weeks

Appeals to the High Court from the Subordinate Courts

4 weeks from the date of receipt of the ROP

3.2 weeks 3.3 weeks

Type of ProceedingsTarget set by Department

Achievement*

2010 2011

Appeal to the Court of Appeal 8 weeks after the week of receipt of the last confirmation of the ROP

8.0 weeks 6.7 weeks

Appeals to the High Court from the Subordinate Courts

8 weeks from the date of receipt of the ROP

6.0 weeks 5.9 weeks

53

* “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.

Timeliness of Justice

54

for 13 cases have been completed, leaving seven outstanding cases to be heard in 2012.

In the year under review, the Court of Three Judges heard five cases involving eight Advocates and Solicitors. Of these, three Advocates and Solicitors were struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors, three were suspended for 30 months, and one was fined $50,000 and censured. The Court of Three Judges also adjourned a hearing involving one Advocate and Solicitor to a date to be fixed.

Under the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules, the Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat is established by the Supreme Court to provide administrative support to a Disciplinary Tribunal.

In 2011, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong appointed 16 Disciplinary Tribunals, as compared to 10 Disciplinary Tribunals in 2010. Together with four