DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report FY2018- 2019.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ANNUAL REPORT L A W S O C I E T Y P R O B O N O S E R V I C E S | A N N U A L R E P O R T | F Y 2 0 1 8 / 1 9 Law Society Pro Bono Services (“LSPBS”) is a registered charity with an Institution of a Public Character (“IPC”) status. Launched in 2007, and incorporated in 2017, LSPBS provides pro bono legal assistance to the community and to organisations in Singapore serving the needy and disadvantaged. We work to: a. develop and ensure a just and efficient system for the provision of pro bono legal services in Singapore; b. coordinate the provision of civil, criminal and community pro bono legal services with various agencies; c. recruit, train and manage volunteers from the legal fraternity and beyond for the provision of pro bono services; d. identify areas of need in the community for pro bono services; and e. protect and assist the public on matters of the law relevant to their lives, particularly through programmes to develop public legal literacy. Law Society Pro Bono Services serves the community by facilitating access to justice for the needy and vulnerable so that all may have access to justice in Singapore. U E N : T 2 0 1 7 0 0 4 3 0 E B A N K S : O C B C B a n k A n d B a n k o f E a s t A s i a A U D I T O R : B a k e r T i l l y T F W L L P A D D R E S S : 1 H a v e l o c k S q u a r e # 0 5 - 0 0 S t a t e C o u r t s S i n g a p o r e 0 5 9 7 2 4 1 The splash of colours on the cover reflects Another important group who need the colours of grace. Those colours cover grace are couples undergoing marriage and characterise the work of Law Society breakdown. Our statistics show that the Pro Bono Services (LSPBS) this past year. topmost enquiries at our legal clinics Grace breaks down barriers as we apply are on family law. Predictably, even with our wordcraft. Every lawyer uses words but our enhanced scale of clinic counselling not every lawyer has speech seasoned with courtesy of our MOU signed this year grace. Grace brings hope and healing to with People’s Association (“PA”), we will their listeners. They are a hallmark of continue to see an acute need for justice with compassion. We, as a pro bono familial legal support. community of LSPBS staff and volunteer lawyers, brought the power of grace into The Family Justice Support Scheme situations and settings this last year. (“FJSS”) has been designed precisely with that outreach in mind: individuals Who were the listeners to these words of with modest means failing the Legal Aid grace? One group this year was the Bureau means test criteria marginally. marginalised migrants. Through a migrant For this group, as the consensus from worker coalition linking heads, hands and the profession (especially the Family hearts of migrant worker organisations and Bar) shows, there is a need to support social service agencies on an LSPBS the public through low bono schemes. platform, we strengthened the serve to this Likewise, foreign spouses or brides with oft-forgotten group. The sharing of best children in Singapore but who practices, issues on the ground and technically do not qualify for legal aid practical answers during our quarterly because of a lack of citizenry or meetings broke solo and silo mindsets. It permanent residence in Singapore made the relevant NGOs a force for good cannot be left helpless and hopeless. and collectively, a force to be reckoned LSPBS has laid the groundwork in with. LSPBS is committed to moderate and conceptualizing a clearing house to calibrate views for moderate and calibrated ensure proper matching for the advocacy to the policymakers of the plight individual and the pro bono/low bono of the foreigner needing access to justice. lawyer. We have submitted a proposal We are particularly pleased to build this to the Government for support to pilot platform so that the marginalised migrants the FJSS. have access to justice whether due to unpaid salaries, debt bondage, trafficking or even a relatively recent observed phenomena on the ground of illegal moneylending to migrant workers. 2 The salient facts and figures of the year under review is in CEO Tanguy Lim’s report and elaborated on the pages of the annual report unfolding as you read. I shall not repeat them. These will also touch on Enhanced CLAS, our jewel in the crown, and the MOU signing with PA that turboboosts our heartland outreach in the CDCs to deliver practical legal awareness and legal aid on bread and butter issues faced by residents such as criminal law, family law, estate matters, Muslim Law and elder law to name some areas. I wish to record my sincere, heartfelt appreciation to Deputy Chairman Kelvin Wong for his unwavering dedication and loyalty to this cause through the “thick and thin” situations we navigated. Kudos also to our diverse fellow Board Members who have stayed engaged and brought various viewpoints to the table to enrich discussion and decision making. I am also deeply grateful to our reliable and committed CEO Tanguy who together with his merry men and women on staff lift me up when I see their unflagging enthusiasm. They have uplifted many indigents. Last but not least, every single volunteer, donor and partner - we salute you. It is the sacrifice of time, treasure or talent from each of you to help the least, last and lost in law that catalyzed the growth and stability of this charity. The future looks bright for our access to justice arm. The region continues to look to us for thought leadership through our participation in regional conferences. We have an invaluable global sharing opportunity later this year when we serve as hosts for the PILNET forum. May the charity’s influence continue to grow deeper and go wider both in Singapore and elsewhere! 3 The cover of this year’s annual report is an With the support of the Law Society’s Family explosion of colours. This kaleidoscopic “big Law Practice Committee, we have laid the bang” pays homage to the diverse passions and ground work to start the implementation of a dynamic energy of our amazing volunteers. Our Family Justice Support Scheme (“FJSS”) to assist volunteers work tirelessly to fill access to persons of modest means who marginally fail justice gaps in our community. They power the the Legal Aid Bureau’s means test as well as full spectrum of our access to justice impecunious foreign spouses with citizen programmes showcased in the pages to follow. children who do not qualify for legal aid due to From law awareness to legal clinics to legal their non-permanent resident status. The FJSS representation for individuals and non-profit will provide both the under lawyered and un- organisations, our volunteers give sacrificially lawyered facing a family law crisis with access of their time to help the needy and to experienced family law practitioners with a marginalized in Singapore. heart for the needy. This is only our second year of operations as a At the initiative of our Chairman, a Migrant standalone entity but with the support of close Workers' Group (“MWG”) to coordinate legal to 2,000 volunteer lawyers and law students it support for migrant workers has been started. has been full steam ahead for all of our Drawing together Social Service Agencies activities. This past year, more than 14,000 supporting migrant workers, volunteers with a persons have been assisted with legal passion to help migrant workers and other awareness, legal advice or legal representation. stakeholder representatives, the MWG meets on a quarterly basis to brainstorm more Key to the scale of our programmes has been effective legal support for common problems the fantastic support we receive from our faced by migrant workers. Focus areas have programme partners who bring us strategic included the development of technology networks and resources thereby helping us to platforms to scale the upstream delivery of achieve an impact far beyond what we could critical legal information to migrant workers as attain on our own. well as the compilation of a legal terminology This support has enabled us to explore new glossary in multiple languages for volunteer access to justice schemes and initiatives in the interpreters to help with more accurate family justice system and to support migrant interpretation of legal advice from English to workers. the migrant worker’s mother tongue. In collaboration with the Family Justice Courts, On behalf of the LSPBS team, I would like to the Community Justice Centre and the express our heartfelt gratitude to you - our Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) volunteers, donors and partners - for your we launched a series of talks for persons giving of time, talent and treasure. Your contemplating divorce or going through one. passionate support inspires us to explore new Entitled “Divorce and You", the talks cover the initiatives and maintain a steady course in divorce process and procedure but with an pursuit of access to justice for the needy where emphasis on knowledge and tools to better ever they may be in our community. manage a stressful situation and make an informed decision on divorce matters.
Recommended publications
  • 4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM

    4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM

    Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
  • Official Publication of the Law Society of Singapore | August 2016

    Official Publication of the Law Society of Singapore | August 2016

    Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore | August 2016 Thio Shen Yi, Senior Counsel President The Law Society of Singapore A RoadMAP for Your Journey The 2016 Mass Call to the Bar will be held this month on 26 Modern psychology tells us employees are not motivated and 27 August over three sessions in the Supreme Court. by their compensation – that’s just a hygiene factor. Pay Over 520 practice trainees will be admitted to the roll of mustn’t be an issue in that it must be fair, and if there is a Advocates & Solicitors. differential with their peers, then ceteris paribus, it cannot be too significant. Along with the Chief Justice, the President of the Law Society has the opportunity to address the new cohort. I Instead, enduring motivation is thought to be driven by three had the privilege of being able to do so last year in 2015, elements, mastery, autonomy, and purpose. There’s some and will enjoy that same privilege this year. truth in this, even more so in the practice of law, where we are first and foremost, members of an honourable The occasion of speaking to new young lawyers always profession. gives me pause for thought. What can I say that will genuinely add value to their professional lives? Making Mastery: The challenge and opportunity to acquire true motherhood statements is as easy as it is pointless. They expertise. There is a real satisfaction in being, and becoming, are soon forgotten, even ignored, assuming that they are really good at something. Leading a cross-border deal heard in the first place.
  • 2020-Sghc-255-Pdf.Pdf

    2020-Sghc-255-Pdf.Pdf

    IN THE COURT OF THREE JUDGES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGHC 255 Court of Three Judges/Originating Summons No 2 of 2020 In the matter of Sections 94(1) and 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) And In the matter of Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern), an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore Between Law Society of Singapore … Applicant And Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern) … Respondent JUDGMENT [Legal Profession] [Solicitor-client relationship] [Legal Profession] [Professional conduct] — [Breach] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (alias Lim Suet Fern) [2020] SGHC 255 Court of Three Judges — Originating Summons No 2 of 2020 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JA and Woo Bih Li J 13 August 2020 20 November 2020 Judgment reserved. Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This is an application by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) for an order pursuant to s 98(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) that the respondent, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (alias Lim Suet Fern) (“the Respondent”), be subject to the sanctions provided for under s 83(1) of that Act. At the time of the proceedings before the disciplinary tribunal (“the DT”), the Respondent was an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of 37 years’ standing and practised as a director of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC, a law corporation.
  • [2018] SGHC 112 Originating Summons No 272 of 2015 in The

    [2018] SGHC 112 Originating Summons No 272 of 2015 in The

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2018] SGHC 112 Originating Summons No 272 of 2015 In the matter of Section 18 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) And In the matter of Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) And In the matter of Order 53, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5) And In the matter of Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore And In the matter of Criminal Case No 23 of 2010 between the Public Prosecutor and Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam Between NAGAENTHRAN A/L K DHARMALINGAM … Applicant And ATTORNEY-GENERAL … Respondent JUDGMENT [Administrative Law] — [Judicial review] — [Ambit] — [Ouster of review jurisdiction] — [Section 33B(4) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)] [Administrative Law] — [Judicial review] — [Application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings] — [Public Prosecutor’s discretion to certify that person had substantively assisted Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore] [Constitutional Law] — [Judicial power] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................4 FACTS RELATING TO THE OFFENCE ..................................................................4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY....................................................................................5 THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS .................................................................13
  • Praxis SE-0707.Indd

    Praxis SE-0707.Indd

    CONTENTS 26 EDITOR’S NOTE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR FEATURES/ARTICLES 23 Opening of the Legal Year 2015 26 The Offi ce of the President of the Malaysian Bar 36 Interview with Christopher Leong, 30th President of the Malaysian Bar 42 Citation for Dr Radhakrishna Ramani, Recipient of the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award 2015 45 Dr Radhakrishna Ramani: A Lifetime of Achievement EVENTS 55 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar, Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel (14 Mar 2015) 58 Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance 2015 (14 Mar 2015) 36 60 LEXPO Rocks Dataran Undergrnd (28 Feb 2015) 63 46th Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore (30 Apr to 2 May 2015) LIFESTYLE 64 Netting the Ball CASE NOTES — HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT STATE BAR NEWS ELEVATION OF JUDGES NEWS 45 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT BAR UPDATES/NOTICES 85 New Admissions to the Malaysian Bar 88 List of Departed Members 88 Notice Regarding Bar Circulars and E-Blasts 89 Summary of Circulars 90 General Information on Matters Discussed at Bar Council Meetings 90 List Of Struck Off Members Wherein Appeal/Reinstatement Allowed 91 Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Council's Custody: Legal Firms in which Bar Council has Intervened 91 Library Update 70 99 Disciplinary Orders JAN-JUN 2015 | PRAXIS 1 COVER STORY BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA Bar Council 15 Leboh Pasar Besar 50050 Kuala Lumpur Tel No: (603) 2050 2050 Fax No: (603) 2026 1313 / (603) 2034 2825 / (603) 2072 5818 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my
  • WITNESS PREPARATION BEFORE TRIAL What the Rules of Ethics Do Not Say

    WITNESS PREPARATION BEFORE TRIAL What the Rules of Ethics Do Not Say

    (2018) 30 SAcLJ 978 (Published on e-First 5 October 2018) WITNESS PREPARATION BEFORE TRIAL What the Rules of Ethics Do Not Say Singapore’s rules of ethics do not expressly address witness preparation before trial. Recent judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal and a disciplinary case decided this year take up the issue of what lawyers may do and not do in preparing witnesses for trial and, in particular, whether witnesses may be prepared as a group. This article examines these cases, the former ethics rules (which applied to the disciplinary case just mentioned) and the current ethics rules. It will be shown that the statutory law remains unsatisfactory in this critical area of ethical practice and that appropriate rules governing witness preparation must be introduced to the current ethics rules. Jeffrey PINSLER SC LLB (Liverpool), LLM (Cambridge), LLD (Liverpool); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Geoffrey Bartholomew Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. I. Introduction 1 Recent case law has raised critical evidential and ethical considerations in the preparation of witnesses before trial. In Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA v Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala1 (“Compania (HC)”), the observations of the High Court on the preparation of witnesses for trial led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings (“the disciplinary case”) against the defendant’s three lawyers (“the Respondents”) pursuant to ss 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act2 (“LPA”), and r 54 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 20103 (“LP(PC)R 2010”).4 The Respondents were exonerated by the disciplinary tribunal.5 In determining the defendant’s substantive appeal against the High Court’s judgment (which had been granted in favour of the plaintiff companies), 1 [2017] SGHC 14.
  • Small Law Firms 92 Social and Welfare 94 Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 97 Sports 98 Young Lawyers 102 ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL 03 STANDARDS 04 SERVING the COMMUNITY

    Small Law Firms 92 Social and Welfare 94 Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 97 Sports 98 Young Lawyers 102 ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL 03 STANDARDS 04 SERVING the COMMUNITY

    OUR MISSION To serve our members and the community by sustaining a competent and independent Bar which upholds the rule of law and ensures access to justice. 01 OUR PEOPLE 02 GROWING OUR PRACTICE The Council 3 Advocacy 51 The Executive Committee 4 Alternative Dispute Resolution 53 Council Report 5 Civil Practice 56 The Secretariat 7 Continuing Professional Development 59 President’s Message 8 Conveyancing Practice 61 CEO’s Report 15 Corporate Practice 63 Treasurer’s Report 27 Criminal Practice 65 Audit Committee Report 31 Cybersecurity and Data Protection 68 Year in Review 32 Family Law Practice 70 Statistics 48 Information Technology 73 Insolvency Practice 74 Intellectual Property Practice 76 International Relations 78 Muslim Law Practice 81 Personal Injury and Property Damage 83 Probate Practice and Succession Planning 85 Publications 87 Public and International Law 90 Small Law Firms 92 Social and Welfare 94 Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 97 Sports 98 Young Lawyers 102 ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL 03 STANDARDS 04 SERVING THE COMMUNITY Admissions 107 Compensation Fund 123 Anti-Money Laundering 109 Professional Indemnity 125 Inquiries into Inadequate Professional Services 111 Report of the Inquiry Panel 113 05 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 06 PRO BONO SERVICES 128 132 07 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 227 This page is intentionally left blank. OUR PEOPLE The council (Seated L to R): Lim Seng Siew, M Rajaram (Vice-President), Gregory Vijayendran (President), Tito Shane Isaac, Adrian Chan Pengee (Standing L to R): Sui Yi Siong (Xu Yixiong), Ng Huan Yong, Simran Kaur Toor,
  • Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector

    Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector

    REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP THE SINGAPORE LEGAL SECTOR _________________________________________ FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2007 Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 1 2 LEGAL EDUCATION ............................................................................................. 2 (A) Legal Academia............................................................................................ 3 (I) Changing Legal Education Landscape......................................... 3 (II) Synergy between Academia and Industry .................................. 5 (III) Recommendations........................................................................... 5 (B) ‘A’ Level Law................................................................................................ 7 (I) Potential Benefits of Introducing ‘A’ Level Law......................... 8 (II) Costs of Implementing ‘A’ Level Law.......................................... 8 (III) Recommendation............................................................................. 9 (C) Restructuring the Present Legal Education System.............................. 9 (I) Admission Criteria for Law Schools............................................. 9 (II) Structure of the LLB Course..........................................................10 (III) Review of Content..........................................................................12
  • Lawlink 2017 Contents 03 Contents

    Lawlink 2017 Contents 03 Contents

    December 2017 ISSN: 0219 - 6441 Honouring EW Barker PLUS NUS Law Celebrates Moot Victories Diamond Jubilee New Centre for Pro Bono Efforts Faculty Features Book Launches Pioneer Graduates Welcome New Generation New Masters in International Arbitration REUNIONS! & Dispute Resolution Classes of 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997 & 2007 THE ALUMNI MAGAZINE OF From left: Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh ‘61, Dean of NUS Law Professor Simon Chesterman, THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE former Chief Justice Mr Chan Sek Keong ‘61, Emeritus Professor Koh Kheng Lian ‘61, FACULTY OF LAW Ms Tan Leng Fong ‘61 and Mr Amarjeet Singh SC ‘61 PIONEER GRADUATES WELCOME NEXT GENERATION The Class of 1961 joined the Class of 2017 at this year’s Commencement on 8 July at the University Cultural Centre Members of the Class of 1961 at Commencement 2017. Front row (from left): Ms Aileen Lim, Ms Tan Leng Fong, and Emeritus Professor Koh Kheng Lian Back row (from left): Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh, Mr Foo Yew Heng, Mr Amarjeet Singh SC, former Chief Justice Mr Chan Sek Keong, and former Solicitor- General Mr Koh Eng Tian This year marked the 60th Anniversary of firms thought that those who qualified As over 300 of this year’s graduates sat the first intake of law students at NUS in England had a superior hallmark. among the faculty’s pioneer batch and and the Faculty was particularly delighted But the Class of 1961 quickly put that renowned members of our alumni, it was to welcome eight members from this misconception right. I would like to a timely reminder of how the Class of 1961 first cohort (the Class of 1961) who were recognise three of them whom as a law set the bar high for all the generations present to share the celebrations! student I looked up to.
  • Sreenivasan Narayanan S.C

    Sreenivasan Narayanan S.C

    Sreenivasan Narayanan S.C. Managing Partner, Singapore Office Singapore +65.6713.0234 [email protected] OVERVIEW Narayanan Sreenivasan, Senior Counsel, has practiced extensively over 35 years in litigation and dispute resolution. Sreeni is a general litigator, practicing across various fields that include commercial litigation, civil litigation, international arbitration, restructuring and reorganization, criminal and regulatory matters. He is a versatile litigator with a diversified track record in dispute resolution. He is admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He is a fellow of both the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators of the UK and the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. Over the years, Sreeni and his team have received numerous commendations from publications such as Chambers and Partners as well as the Legal 500 Asia Pacific, including the following: . “Sreenivasan Narayanan S.C. is well respected in the market. A client highlights him for his understanding of complex issues and for "giving on-the-spot advice on the best approach to have and things to watch out for." . “N Sreenivasan regularly acts for private clients as defendants in cases involving financial, accounting, and fraud angles. He also undertakes arbitration, trial, and appellate advocacy work.” . “K&L Gates Straits Law LLC has a tremendous standing in Singapore dispute resolution, thanks to the presence of Singapore managing partner N Sreenivasan SC, a recognised leader in cross-examination, and his team that joined as part of the merger with Straits Law Practice LLC in January 2019. With an outstanding record in Singapore court proceedings, including banking disputes involving Indian banks, it is also making an impact in investigations.
  • Wrongful Convictions in Singapore: a General Survey of Risk Factors Siyuan CHEN Singapore Management University, Siyuanchen@Smu.Edu.Sg

    Wrongful Convictions in Singapore: a General Survey of Risk Factors Siyuan CHEN Singapore Management University, [email protected]

    Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School Of Law School of Law 1-2010 Wrongful Convictions in Singapore: A General Survey of Risk Factors Siyuan CHEN Singapore Management University, [email protected] Eunice CHUA Singapore Management University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Citation CHEN, Siyuan and CHUA, Eunice. Wrongful Convictions in Singapore: A General Survey of Risk Factors. (2010). Singapore Law Review. 28, 98-122. Research Collection School Of Law. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/933 This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection School Of Law by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email [email protected]. Singapore Law Review Published in Singapore Law Review 2010, Vol. 28, Pages 98-122. (2010) 28 SingL Rev, 98-122 WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS IN SINGAPORE: A GENERAL SURVEY OF RISK FACTORS CHEN SiyUAN AND EUNICE CHUA" This article seeks to raise awarenessabout the potentialfor wrongfiul convictions in Singapore by analysing the factors commonly identified as contributing towards wrongful convictions in otherjurisdictions, including institutionalfailures and suspect evidence. It also considers whether the social conditions in Singapore are favourable to discovering and publicising wrongful convictions. The authors come to the conclusion that Singapore does well on a number offi-onts and no sweeping reforms are necessary However there are areas ofrisk viz the excessive focus on crime control rather than due process, which require some tweaking of the system.
  • Digital Delivery of Course Materials

    Digital Delivery of Course Materials

    Part A of the Singapore Bar Examinations Subject: Company Law Subject Coordinator: Professor Walter Woon, SC Professor Walter Woon is currently the David Marshall Professor of Law at the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore and concurrently Dean of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education. He is also Chairman and senior consultant of the firm RHT Law Taylor Wessing, as well as a member of the Chancery Bar Association of England and Wales and of the Criminal Practice Committee of the Law Society of Singapore. He was Attorney-General from 2008 to 2010, having previously served as Solicitor-General from 2006 to 2008. Professor Woon read law at the National University of Singapore on a DBS Scholarship from 1977 to 1981. He graduated with First Class Honours and was awarded the Adrian Clark Memorial Medal (top student, 1981), the Leow Chia Heng Prize (1981), the External Examiners’ Special Cash Prize (1981) and the Law Society Book Prize thrice (1978, 1979, 1980). He passed the Postgraduate Practice Law Course (the precursor of the Bar Examinations) in 1981, winning the Aw Boon Haw & Aw Boon Par Memorial Prize (top student, 1981) and the Tan Ah Tah Book Prize for Professional Ethics (1981). He then proceeded to Cambridge University on a Commonwealth Scholarship, graduating with an LL.M (First Class Honours) in 1983. He was awarded the Whytehead Scholarship (1983) and the Wright Prize (1983) by St John’s College Cambridge. He has been awarded a Faculty Teaching Excellence Award thrice (2013, 2014, 2015) and a University Teaching Excellence Award twice (2014, 2015).