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 - Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal - 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 Public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court rests on its integrity 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 Judges and Staff of the Supreme Court of Singapore MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE Response of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong delivered at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012 on 6 January 2012 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 Mr Attorney only on this occasion, but as vows of a calling. I also take note of the kind words and praise that Mr Wong Meng Meng SC, President of the Law the Attorney-General has expressed in respect of Society the contributions of Justice Kan Ting Chiu to the administration of justice in Singapore. We share in Members of the Bar these tributes to him, and we wish him a stress-free retirement. Ladies and Gentlemen, At last year’s Opening of the Legal Year, I spoke on On behalf of the Judiciary, I welcome you all to three main topics: (a) the state of criminal practice this morning’s ceremony to open the new Legal and the Criminal Bar, (b) the problem of missing Year. I also welcome the Chief Registrar of the clients’ monies in conveyancing matters, and (c) the Supreme Court of Brunei, Pengiran Hajah Rostaina need for a larger pool of expert litigation counsel binte Pengiran Haji Duraman; Mr Lim Chee Wee, to represent consumers and investors, especially President of the Malaysian Bar Council; Mr Kumar in advising and representing them in important Ramanathan SC, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar financial or commercial claims against big business in 04 Message from the Chief Justice Singapore. I am happy to note that all these concerns also mulling over whether to make prior pro bono have been looked into and certain measures will be representation in criminal matters another criterion taken to alleviate some of these problems, as you for future appointments as Senior Counsel. I will have just heard from the Attorney-General and the seek the views of my Judges and the Law Society President of the Law Society. I would like to add a on this matter. few more observations on these and other matters. Pro bono work The state assigned counsel scheme – Mr Wong referred to the American Bar “LASCO” Association’s recommendation of 50 hours of The Law Society has worked with the Supreme pro bono work every year for its members, and Court Registry in making structural changes has suggested that global lawyers based here to LASCO, the acronym for the state assigned might wish to make cash donations in lieu of their counsel scheme, in order to improve the quality of domestic pro bono obligations.1 But, before representation in capital cases. We have constituted we ask others to contribute, the Bar has to lead a LASCO Selection Panel, whose members include by example. In this regard, I am glad to note Senior Counsel and members of the Criminal Bar, that, among other initiatives, the Bar has in 2011 to provide a more rigorous emplacement and contributed about $127,000 to the Law Society’s assignment process for counsel to lead in LASCO pro bono programme, CLAS, of which $76,000 matters. We have increased the honorarium came from the larger law firms. But the latter payable to counsel, but not to market rates. We group of firms can surely do better, considering must not forget that many of the defendants that the Law Society managed to raise more than concerned would not be able to afford what is twice that sum at its 2011 Charity Golf Tournament. being paid as honorarium to the two assigned With their lucrative corporate and civil litigation counsel under the scheme. The value of LASCO is practices, these firms sit atop of Singapore’s wealth not in the honorarium but counsel’s services. I am pole (to use the caption of a Business Times report glad that many LASCO volunteers have spoken published in its Christmas eve edition). They are out publicly that the motivation for their efforts is among the greatest beneficiaries of our laws and not the honorarium but the personal satisfaction legal system. In corporate law firms, lawyers can of providing the best possible defence for their only “eat what [they] kill”. As pro bono work brings clients, with the added sense of achievement nothing to the dinner table, one can understand if their clients are acquitted or the charges are why young aspiring corporate lawyers would reduced. While the number of qualified counsel be reluctant to do pro bono work. They can be on the Panel is certainly important, the quality of encouraged to do so if management provides counsel is even more crucial. In this connection, I them with an incentive, such as crediting their pro would urge the Senior Counsel Forum to persuade bono work with a notional income based on what its members to play a greater role in LASCO and they would have earned for the firm at their normal also in the Law Society’s own pro bono scheme, charge-out rates. Perhaps, law firms that are large ie, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (“CLAS”). As enough might even consider setting up pro bono Senior Counsel are, by definition, the elite of the departments, as some American law firms have profession, it is only right that they take the lead done. This brings to mind another thought: the in accepting pro bono work. For that reason, I am 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. 05 annual pro bono league table, like in the US. This or Part B of their qualifying exams. I should add will enable the public, clients, law students and the that Singapore Management University (“SMU”) legal community to know the rankings of law firms J.D. students are required to perform 50 hours in terms of giving back to society. of community service attachment at a Voluntary Welfare Organisation or an organisation involved in I am also glad that Mr Wong has provided clarity to pro bono and legal aid work. the meaning of pro bono.2 It is not just free work, but free work for our poor “neighbours” without Clients’ monies in conveyancing matters expectation of any kind of material reward – it is In August 2011, the Ministry of Law established a the work of the Good Samaritan. It is not free work statutory scheme to prohibit conveyancers from provided to clients or even to the Council of the Law holding conveyancing monies in clients’ accounts. Society or the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”). Clients have been given three choices as to how to safeguard their funds, at different costs – (a) For many lawyers, pro bono as a social value the setting up of conveyancing accounts with does not come from nature, but from nurture.