STATE COURTS WORKPLAN 2015: “Delivering Justice to the Community”

Friday, 24 April 2015

Keynote Address by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon

Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, the Presiding Judge of the State Courts, the Hon Judicial Commissioner, Mr See Kee Oon, fellow Judges, ladies and gentlemen.

INTRODUCTION

1. It gives me great pleasure to address you at today’s State Courts Workplan. Our theme this year, “Delivering Justice to the Community”, is especially apt as the Courts’ core mission is to serve the people of Singapore1 through an effective and accessible justice system.

2. This Workplan was originally meant to be held on 27 March 2015. That was in the midst of the National Period of Mourning after the demise of our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and the PJSC and I decided to reschedule it to this morning. Given that context, I thought it would be appropriate to begin my address this morning by situating the work we do as Judges and Court Administrators within Mr Lee’s vision of the role of the courts and of the Judiciary in our country. In the aftermath of Mr Lee’s demise, we as a people, have had the occasion to reflect deeply on the unlikely journey we have made from our roots as a modest third world city to what we have become today. We have also had a number of discussions about how we might fittingly honour the memory of our founding fathers. But the point has been forcefully made by others that we would honour them most eloquently by remaining faithful and committed to the ideals that inspired them. This is the context in which I wish to examine Mr Lee’s perspective on the role of the courts in Singapore.

3. Mr Lee saw a free, independent, incorrupt and efficient Judiciary as vital to the success of Singapore. He practised law for about a decade, including in these courts, before becoming our founding Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, he was unwavering in his conviction that the Public Service, including the Judiciary, must retain its fair share of talent. For Mr Lee, the Rule of Law was not a mere abstraction. To him, it was important that our legal system operated well at a practical level to ensure order and justice in dealings among the people in Singapore, and that justice is fair and accessible to all. Among his many speeches, his address to the Law Society at its Annual Dinner in 1962 is one that gives us a glimpse of his vision at the beginning of our nation’s journey.

1 Response by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Opening of Legal Year 2015 (5 January 2015), at [16].

4. In that speech, Mr Lee described the legal profession as the legal architects, whose responsibility it would be to “help shape out of the raw material available here, the ideal pattern of law to regulate … relations between subjects inter se and between subjects and the state.” Mr Lee saw law and order as inseparable elements that were necessary if we were to build a successful society. “Good laws lead to good order” but “without order, the operation of the law is impossible”, he said. In fact, Mr Lee thought it might be more correct to reverse the sequence to read order and law.

5. There is an intensely pragmatic reality in this view. As Mr Lee put it in that same speech, “the acid test of any legal system is not the greatness or grandeur of its legal concepts, but whether in fact, it is able to produce order and justice in the relationships between [subjects] and between [subjects] and the state.” As we look back over the last 53 years since that speech, we might legitimately feel that our legal system has come through that test reasonably well in affording our citizens a good measure of order and justice in these relationships.

6. But to what can this be traced? When Mr Lee referred to the “raw material” that our legal pioneers would have to work with, he was speaking of the body of laws and legal principles inherited from the British. But he recognised at the outset that it would be wrong to assume that what had been developed in another age and society would necessarily serve the needs of our society. These raw materials therefore needed to be adapted to suit our own needs and conditions rather than be blindly adopted. This was perhaps the first assertion of the importance of developing an indigenous legal system that reflects and supports the best ideals of our society. And what are those ideals? They were there from the beginning of our nationhood: equality, meritocracy, integrity, tolerance and the fair, just and practical application of the law based on what is right and not based on who is before us.

7. We would do well to keep these ideals firmly in mind as we reflect on our work as Judges and Court Administrators.

8. Let me then turn to our Workplan this year, which happens to be a unique Workplan as it is our first ‘in-house’ Workplan. There are no members of the press or external guests present today though we are pleased of course to have with us our colleagues from the Supreme Court and the Family Justice Courts. The PJSC and I discussed this last year and we thought that having in-house Workplans in alternate years would enable us to have a longer planning cycle within which to develop and implement sustainable initiatives. It also recognises the reality that some projects do have a longer gestation period and so require a longer runway.

9. This year, we celebrate our golden jubilee as a nation after 50 years of independence. This presents us with a timely occasion to recall the history of our

physical setting. From 1877, when the District and Magistrates’ Courts were housed in South Bridge Road until 1975, when the construction of the Subordinate Courts’ Havelock Square Complex was completed, our courts operated from various different locations, including Hong Lim Green, Havelock Road, Empress Place, New Bridge Road, the former Sepoy Lines Police Station, and Outram Road.

10. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Havelock Square Complex. It was initially built to house only 26 courtrooms; today there are 40 courtrooms which operate alongside other court-based services to cater for the full range of dispute resolution services.

11. The ground-breaking ceremony for the construction of the new State Courts Complex last year was therefore a truly momentous event. The new Complex will not only afford us a new physical space but it will be a symbol of our commitment to continue to play a vital role in our society.

12. The ground-breaking was one among a number of significant events that made this past year a watershed year. In March 2014, we were renamed the State Courts; and in October 2014, we launched the new Family Justice Courts, which became a separate judicial entity from the State Courts. The State Courts also organised several important conferences in 2014, including the Court Excellence and Judicial Cooperation Forum and the inaugural Sentencing Conference.

13. Amidst these significant changes, I am heartened that progress has continued apace on all of the Workplan initiatives we launched last year with a view to enhancing the delivery of justice. These ranged from the launch of the Progress Accountability Court, the Primary Justice Project,2 and the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution, to the simplification of civil processes for lower value claims. Let me trace some of the highlights:

a. For the Progress Accountability Court (PAC), from September 2014 to end March 2015, 36 cases were reviewed, with a further 15 cases scheduled for review by July 2015. The number of PAC cases is expected to increase once the PAC takes on reformative training cases from this quarter.

b. For the Primary Justice Project, we had 39 applications between May 2014 and March 2015. Of these, 29 were assigned to lawyers, while 10 were withdrawn. Over time, as the awareness of the PJP grows, we can expect the number of applications to rise.

c. On 4 March 2015, I launched the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution. This will serve as the Judiciary’s node or focal point for alternative dispute

2 Under the Primary Justice Project, lawyers will provide basic legal services for their clients at a fixed fee, with the specific aim of attempting to achieve an amicable resolution through mediation or negotiation. The Primary Justice Project, which was officially launched on 9 May 2014, serves as an intermediate step between self-help and the commencement of an action in court. The Primary Justice Project is the joint effort of the State Courts, Law Society, and the Community Justice Centre.

resolution services for civil claims, Magistrate’s Complaints lodged at the Crime Registry, and for other relational disputes such as applications under the Protection from Harassment Act.

d. As for the simplification of civil processes for lower value claims, I will touch on this a little later.

14. As we turn our attention from what has been to what is yet to come, I suggest there are three notions that will be integral to us and that should guide our thinking. These are the importance respectively of:

I. Providing Tailored Justice for Court Users; II. Giving Practical Help to Court Users; and III. Engaging our Stakeholders.

I. PROVIDING TAILORED JUSTICE FOR COURT USERS

15. ‘Tailored justice’ refers to the development of different pathways for the resolution of matters with different processes and emphases, depending on the nature of the cases that come before us. The idea is borne out of the recognition that efforts to deliver justice must be customised to some degree to accommodate the issues and needs that may be peculiar to each type of case. Let me look ahead to each of the four operational divisions of the State Courts in this context.

Community Justice and Tribunals Division

16. I begin with the new Community Justice and Tribunals Division (or ‘CJTD’ for short), which I launched this morning. The CJTD will oversee certain categories of cases, including those brought under:

a. The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA); b. The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT); and c. In due course, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT).

17. POHA came into force on 15 November 2014. It provides civil and criminal recourse for victims of harassment. POHA makes harassment a criminal offence in both the physical and the virtual worlds; harassment includes stalking, sexual harassment, and cyber-bullying. An important feature of POHA is that victims of harassment can apply for a protection order or, in urgent cases, an expedited protection order. The State Courts can, in appropriate cases, also issue a non- publication order.

18. The SCT celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. Over the last three decades, the SCT has provided a speedy and inexpensive forum to resolve disputes between consumers and suppliers. Its simplified procedures are designed for the benefit of lay users and it has played a vital role in enabling meaningful access to

justice in these cases of relatively small value. There are also plans in the pipeline to develop an online filing and management system tailored to the SCT’s unique needs and discrete processes. The system can potentially also be adapted for use elsewhere within the CJTD to leverage on technology to better serve court users.

19. As for the CDRT, this will be set up in the 3rd quarter of 2015. The CDRT is a key pillar of the Community Disputes Resolution Framework, which is a whole-of- government effort to encourage neighbourliness and enhance the management of disputes between neighbours. As part of this holistic approach, agencies have identified a need for better frontline responses to community disputes and more effective enforcement capabilities.

20. The CDRT will adjudicate cases between neighbours that cannot be resolved amicably. It will employ a low-cost adjudicatory framework with simplified processes and will not involve lawyers. Hearings will be kept informal and they will not be subject to the strictures of the usual rules of evidence. In the main, these processes will be judge-led. The CDRT is intended to function as a final resort to resolve longstanding differences, after community mediation efforts have been exhausted. Those who do not comply with the judgments and orders of CDRT may face prosecution.

21. The CDRT and the other tribunals that I have referred to will be brought together under a single umbrella in the Community Justice and Tribunals Division. The focus of the CDRT will be on maintaining simple and accessible processes that are designed with litigants-in-person in mind and where the traditional methods and processes of adjudication may not be suitable. We will also conduct periodic reviews of our existing processes to incorporate best practices and in this regard, the SCT’s processes will be reviewed later this year.

22. To accommodate these developments, Judges and Court Administrators will continue to receive training to build deep skills and the special expertise needed to handle these types of matters optimally.

Criminal Justice Division

(a) Expanding Legal Assistance Schemes for Accused Persons

23. Accused persons who are not represented by counsel will often be at a loss and they may have many unresolved needs for information, advice, and support. As I noted at the Opening of this Legal Year, the accessibility of our justice system is of visceral concern to our citizens and we must keep this at the forefront of any efforts to design suitable legal frameworks and processes.3 To address the particular concern of unrepresented accused persons, a key priority is to enhance the availability of legal assistance schemes. At present, schemes such

3 Response by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Opening of Legal Year 2015 (5 January 2015), at [16].

as the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) and Guidance for Plea Scheme (GPS)4, and the Community Justice Centre (CJC) each play a significant role in assisting such accused persons.

24. However, we must build on these foundations. This year, we will seek to enhance access to criminal justice in the following ways5:

a. First, in conjunction with the Law Society’s enhanced CLAS scheme, more pro bono counsel may be assigned to accused persons in suitable criminal cases, with a pilot programme involving the Criminal Case Management Scheme (CCMS) and Criminal Case Resolution (CCR6) Scheme. I expect that more details will be unveiled in May 2015 when the Law Society officially launches its enhanced CLAS scheme.

b. Second, we will explore how the Primary Justice Project can also be extended to the CCMS and CCR on a pilot basis. Under this programme, basic legal advice for a fixed fee may be extended to accused persons who are on bail but who may not qualify for assistance from CLAS on account of not meeting the means test. Counsel engaged under this programme may make representations on behalf of accused persons for matters such as the reduction of charges and may also assist by requesting sentence indications.

c. Third, the GPS has been expanded for certain categories of uncontested cases. These include cases involving remanded accused persons, multiple charges,7 mental or psychiatric issues, or where an imprisonment term is mandatory or likely upon conviction. Judges presiding over the pre-trial conference and mentions courts may refer cases which meet the above criteria to CJC, which would in turn assign GPS lawyers to the accused persons.

(b) Case Docketing for Complex Cases

25. Besides expanding the various legal assistance schemes, we will also establish a Case Docketing System for complex criminal cases.

26. Case docketing was introduced on a more widespread basis in the Supreme Court in 2013. Under the State Courts’ Case Docketing System, complex criminal cases will be identified and assigned to selected senior Judges with extensive experience so that these cases can be managed more effectively and pre-trial delay can thereby be minimised.

4 The Guidance for Plea Scheme was launched in August 2013. 5 Response by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Opening of Legal Year 2015 (5 January 2015), at [35] to [37]. 6 The Criminal Case Resolution (CCR) scheme was established in October 2011 to provide an avenue for the defence and prosecution to discuss how to resolve cases at an early stage, with a senior Judge acting as a neutral facilitator. 7 More than 3 charges.

27. The assigned Judges will follow the case through its life cycle and so become better acquainted with the issues. The Judges will also be better placed to maintain the pace of the proceedings at a satisfactory level and avoid unnecessary delays. We expect that the end result of this will be to enhance the management of these cases with attendant savings in the number of hearing days that may be required. In addition, it will facilitate the opportunity for a measure of judicial specialisation in certain categories of cases, such as those involving white-collar offences.

28. In connection with the Case Docketing System, case management protocols for Court Administrators and practice directions for Judicial Officers will be refined. In the longer fixtures, we will also endeavour, where this is possible, to avoid having matters part-heard.

29. Before I leave this subject, let me touch on one issue that does from time to time contribute to delays in the resolution of matters. This pertains specifically to the need to accommodate counsels’ diaries when fixing hearing dates. There was a time when little if any consideration was given to counsels’ schedules. Over time we have relaxed this somewhat and have been more flexible in accommodating counsel but we must retain an appropriate balance. This is not yet a problem that is widespread but because it tends to arise especially with some of our busiest counsel who will have active practices in arbitration and also in the Supreme Court, it can result in slowing down the resolution of some of the more difficult criminal cases in the State Courts. As much as we will take steps to minimise delays by enhancing case management and introducing a selective docketing system, counsel on their part will also have to recognise that the scheduling of cases will not be driven by counsels’ diaries and by how busy they are. We will weigh the considerations and where appropriate will go ahead and fix matters for hearing and leave it to counsel to free up their diaries by either declining briefs or passing matters to others to deal with them.

Civil Justice Division

Simplifying Civil Processes for Lower Value Claims – Second Phase

30. At the Opening of the Legal Year 2013, I reported that I had asked the State Courts to look into simplifying the procedural rules and processes for lower value civil cases, to ensure that such cases are resolved at a proportionate level of cost.

31. The first phase of this Project was successfully implemented on 1 November 2014, with the introduction of the new Order 108 of the Rules of Court, which institutes a robust procedure that is characterised by upfront disclosure and negotiation designed to encourage and facilitate early resolution, offers the option of a simplified trial, and features active case management through early

case management conferences. As at the end of March 2015, 9119 writs have been filed under the new Order 108.

32. In the second phase of the Project, we will examine the feasibility of simplifying the current system of pleadings. A comprehensive study on the experiences of other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia will be carried out, before adapting best practices to fit our circumstances.

33. We will also explore the desirability of having a more judge-led approach in simplified civil trials involving litigants-in-person. We will study the practices of other jurisdictions in this regard, and consider appropriate changes to the Rules of Court.

34. These are all part of our overarching commitment to reduce costs, to enhance the efficiency and accessibility and to modernise the litigation process.

State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution

Strengthening Pre-Action Protocols for Motor Accident Cases

35. Let me turn to common tort cases. The use of pre-action protocols for Non-Injury Motor Accident (NIMA) and Personal Injury (PI) cases was implemented pursuant to practice directions issued in 2002 and 2011 respectively. The protocols have generally worked well in facilitating the early resolution of NIMA and PI claims without the need for litigation. However, we would like to see a higher level of compliance with these protocols as this has been shown to result in the faster resolution of such claims.

36. To this end, the protocols are being reviewed to make them more robust in facilitating pre-action discovery and negotiations in the following ways:

a. First, the protocols will be amended, to mandate the exchange of the list of documents at the pre-action stage. The letter of claim and the reply to the letter will have to be accompanied by such a list of documents.

b. Second, we will look to strengthen the existing framework with a view to incentivising greater compliance with the protocols. This is likely to extend to tying non-compliance to adverse costs consequences.

c. Third, we will engage the stakeholders to simplify the protocols to make them more user-friendly and easy to navigate, thereby promoting compliance with the protocols.

II. GIVING PRACTICAL HELP TO COURT USERS

37. Let me turn to the second of our guiding ideas, namely that of providing practical help to court users. There are two aspects that I would like to highlight: (a)

providing users with easily understandable information, and (b) developing our infrastructure to help users.

Providing Users with Easily Understandable Information

38. The State Courts engaged a team of Design Thinking consultants in 2014 to prepare a design brief on recommendations for the new State Courts complex, and to identify ways in which the State Courts can enhance communications and interaction with our court users.

39. The Design Thinking project team has as a first step, developed a prototype information booklet to guide family members and friends of accused persons through the criminal mentions process which takes place when the accused is first charged in Court 26. The information booklet is titled “6 Things You Should Know About Court 26”, and it will be a helpful resource for people who use Court 26 and the Bail Centre.

40. Looking ahead, efforts will be made to align such materials with inputs from other agencies. But beyond such informational aids, there are other projects in the pipeline, including possible changes in the layout of certain facilities, a pre-claim assessment video for users of the Small Claims Tribunals, and publicity materials for the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunals.

Developing Infrastructure to Help Users

41. The State Courts will also develop our infrastructure to help users. Self-help kiosks will be set up within the State Courts’ premises to enable the payment of court fees and fines. This will be more efficient than the current system of deploying officers at multiple counters.

42. We will also leverage on technology in the Coroner’s Court where iPads and still photographs will be offered as an alternative for family members to identify their deceased next-of-kin. Safeguards will be put in place to ensure the accurate identification of the deceased persons. The objective is to alleviate the stress and trauma faced by family members in this painful task.

43. In terms of physical infrastructure, I alluded earlier to the construction of the new State Courts Complex having commenced. When completed, this will be a landmark building to serve the people of Singapore. But that is some time away. In the interim, improvements have been made to the physical environment to address the needs of our users. These include erecting noise barriers and installing a covered walkway.

44. In addition, there are provisional plans to set up an integrated pre-trial conference centre for criminal cases, which will house 3 PTC chambers with customised facilities and services for PTCs, including a waiting area and video-link facilities to the remand area.

III. ENGAGING OUR STAKEHOLDERS

45. Let me turn finally to the engagement of our stakeholders. In the State Courts’ 2014 Stakeholders Survey, 94% of the respondents expressed an overall high level of satisfaction with the State Courts’ collaborative efforts, and 99% had full confidence in the State Courts’ fair administration of justice. This is a resounding vote of confidence in the State Courts.

46. As we strive to maintain and even to raise these standards, it remains incumbent on us to keep a wider perspective of the legal and judicial system as a whole. In this regard, the State Courts must continue to work together with our stakeholders in:

(a) collaborative efforts with overseas judiciaries and international organisations, and also (b) collaborative efforts within our judiciary.

Collaboration with Overseas Judiciaries & International Organisations

47. One particular area of leadership that the State Courts has been synonymous with is court excellence. The inaugural Court Excellence and Judicial Cooperation Forum organised by the State Courts in collaboration with the ASEAN Secretariat in 2014, saw the participation of all ten ASEAN8 judiciaries and was a great success. We must build on this. The Forum generated keen interest from the ASEAN Judiciaries to formulate an ASEAN model of the International Framework for Court Excellence (“IFCE”), and the State Courts will continue to engage other ASEAN Judiciaries in this regard.

48. In this connection, the State Courts will organise an International Conference on the IFCE, provisionally to be held in end-January 2016. This will be an excellent opportunity to share best practices in court excellence, forge strategic alliances and closer ties between the judiciaries, and complement the judicial exchange programmes organised by the State Courts.

Collaboration within our Judiciary and Justice Eco-System

49. We will also continue to enhance our collaborative efforts within our Judiciary especially in areas of common interests such as promoting the use of alternative dispute resolution and the training of Court Administrators and Judges. Supreme Court Judges, including Senior Judges, will continue to help with the training and mentoring of the Judges of the State Courts.9

8 Association of South East Asian Nations. 9 Response by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Opening of Legal Year 2015 (5 January 2015), at [11].

50. The Singapore Judicial College will play a key role in steering judicial training initiatives and also significantly boost the suite of programmes for judicial training and development.10 The State Courts will partner the Singapore Judicial College and harness the synergy of our experience accumulated over the years for knowledge-sharing and capacity-building in the region and beyond.

CONCLUSION

51. Before closing, I would like to extend my congratulations to the State Courts for being awarded the Work-Life Excellence Award in 2014. This national award recognises the State Courts’ contributions in promoting work-life harmony. In addition, I congratulate the State Courts on being awarded 2 FutureGov Singapore Awards on 7 April 2015 for the Primary Justice Project and the Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System, reflecting the State Courts’ commitment to providing timely dispute resolution and excellent court services.

52. I am also happy to hear that the inaugural hearing break in November 2014 gave each of you some time for reflection, training, and writing. I am pleased to note that there will be an additional 1-week hearing break in June this year. I am mindful that you carry a heavy caseload at the State Courts, and these occasional hearing breaks will enhance your overall productivity.

53. Let me say again that I regard the State Courts as central and integral to our judicial system: you operate at the heart of justice. I am very grateful to all of you at the State Courts for serving with passion and a deep sense of mission. Continue to do your utmost to uphold the sacred trust of Singaporeans and do the right thing every day. I extend my very best wishes to the Presiding Judge and all of you as you continue to serve Singapore.

10 Response by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Opening of Legal Year 2015 (5 January 2015), at [51].