DOCSLIB.ORG

Capital Punishment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capital Punishment CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A CROSS JURISDICTIONAL CRITIQUE VENGADESH KUMARAVELU Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) Murdoch University This thesis is presented for the Honours degree of Bachelor of Laws of Murdoch University (November 2013) i DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY I, Vengadesh Kumaravelu, hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and effort and that it has not been submitted anywhere for any award. Where other sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged. Vengadesh Kumaravelu Dated: 02 December 2013 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Lorraine Finlay at the School of Law, Murdoch University, without whose expertise, guidance and support, the completion of this Honours thesis and the Legal Research Methods for Honours unit would have been impossible. I would also like to thank all my friends in Australia and Singapore for their support throughout my journey in Bachelor of Laws with Honours program. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unconditional love, support, advice and encouragement throughout this journey. Vengadesh Kumaravelu Dated: 02 December 2013 iii ABSTRACT This thesis analyses whether any changes to the current scope of the death penalty in either Australia or Singapore invite consideration or whether the respective regimes are grounded in sound principle. Both countries have been selected as they are at opposing ends of the death penalty spectrum, being abolitionist and retentionist respectively. One major issue reoccurring in various jurisdictions is an innocent accused being wrongfully convicted of a crime. Human institutions such as a country’s criminal justice system are fallible. Countries like Singapore that have a more ‘weighted’ approach towards Herbert Packer’s ‘crime control model’ must try to strike a balance with the ‘due process model’ to prevent the occurrences of wrongful convictions. Given the irreversible nature of capital punishment, this paper contends that an accused charged for a capital offence must be provided their fundamental rights, such as the right to access to counsel and the right to silence. The thesis also emphasizes the importance of pre- trial investigative procedures, such as the video-recording of suspect statements during police questioning or the preservation of DNA samples, to protect innocent individuals. Mandatory sentencing itself is subject to various problems. These issues may be amplified when the mandatory death sentence is concern. Therefore, the thesis contends that the mandatory death sentence does not deter (or only marginally deters) crimes as many retentionist States recognize. However, parliamentary sovereign nations, like Singapore, have the right to determine its criminal laws. The current state of international law does not totally prohibit the imposition of capital punishment. By considering the community’s perception of capital punishment in both jurisdictions, this paper finally discusses two issues; (1) whether the current state of the law in Australia allows it to reintroduce the death penalty if it desires to, and (2) whether the amendments in Singapore’s death penalty regime in 2012 signal the possible abolition of the punishment. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………1 I HISTORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT & INTERNATIONAL LAW……………...4 A Ancient History……………………….……………….……………………………..4 B Capital Punishment in England….…………………………………………………..5 1) The Black Act….……………………………………………….…………………6 C Capital Punishment in Australia………………………..……………………………8 D Brief History of Singapore………………………………………………………….11 1) Straits Settlements Penal Code……………………………………...……...13 2) Crime Rates in the Straits Settlements……………………………………..15 E Capital Punishment in Singapore……..………...………………………………….18 F International Law…………………………………………………………………...27 1) International Conventions and Instrumentalities……………......................28 2) International Obligations…………………………………………………...30 (a) Australia…………………………………………………………...30 (b) Singapore………………………………………………………….30 II CRIMINAL PROCESS MODELS & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS………………...36 A Criminal Process Models………………………………..……………………...…..36 B Wrongful Convictions……………………………………………………………….40 1) The Judiciary and Legislature……...……………………………………...41 (a) Right to Counsel……………………………………………………….44 (b) Right to Silence………………………………………………………..49 v 2) Police Force……...………………………………………………………...55 (a) Tunnel Vision and Confirmation Bias…………………………………56 (b) Police Corruption………………………………………………………57 (c) Video-recording Interrogations……………...………………………...59 3) Prosecutor’s Non-disclosure and Police Misconduct……………………...63 4) Jury System………………………………………………………………...70 (a) Instructions to Jury…………………………………………………….73 (b) Scientific Evidence…………………………………………………….75 (c) Pre-trial Publicity…………….………………………………………...77 5) Unanimous Decision………………………………………...……………..79 6) Innocence Projects & DNA………………………………………………...80 III THE MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY……………………………………………..86 1) Constitutionality of Singapore’s Mandatory Death Penalty………...…………87 2) Abolishing the Mandatory Nature of the Death Penalty?..................................94 (a) Drug Offences…………………………………………...……………..95 (b) Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder……………………………..98 (c) The Future of the Death Penalty in Singapore……………………….101 i Judicial Discretion……………………………………………………………………101 ii Attitude of Singaporeans……………………………………………………………..102 iii Ensuring the Community Understands………………………………….…………105 iv New Laws in Action…………………………………………………………………..107 v No Radical Change for Now………………………………………..…………107 3) Can Australia Reinstate the Death Penalty?.....................................................110 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….…………........... 112 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………… i vi CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A CROSS JURISDICTIONAL CRITIQUE VENGADESH KUMARAVELU INTRODUCTION Capital punishment refers to state sanctioned executions of convicted individuals. According to the statistics on the website of Amnesty International, 140 countries have abolished the penalty ‘in law or practise’; whilst 58 countries still impose capital punishment.1 Notwithstanding these figures, the genesis for this thesis arises from the ongoing international debates, in both abolitionist and retentionist countries, on whether the punishment fits in a civilised legal system. This thesis paper will explore the origins of the death penalty and whether any change is needed in its administration. It will focus principally on a comparison between the divergent approaches of the two countries, Australia and Singapore. Specifically, laws governing murder and drug related offences, and criminal processes in Singapore and Western Australia, form the bedrock of this thesis. Ultimately, this paper will analyse whether any changes to the current scope of the death penalty in either Australia or Singapore invite consideration or whether the respective regimes are grounded in sound principle. There are reasons why this thesis compares Singapore and Australia, specifically Western Australia. Firstly, their criminal laws are contained in a single Code. Secondly, Australia and Singapore have common British heritage in their legal systems. Thirdly, both Singapore and Australia are developed countries.2 Lastly, All errors in this paper are my own. 1 For breakdown of statistics, See Amnesty International, Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries <http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries>. 2 The International Statistical Institute, Developing Countries 2013 <http://www.isi-web.org/component/content/article/5-root/root/81-developing>. 1 concepts like the ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Separation of Powers’ are evident in both the Singaporean and Australian legal systems.3 Australia’s opposition to the death penalty is apparent from its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), and the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.4 In contrast, Singapore is not a signatory of the ICCPR, and firmly believes that punishment is vital to combat crimes within its jurisdiction.5 Singapore claims to impose capital punishment for only the most serious crimes (namely serious murders and drug trafficking),6 recognising the severity of the penalty and its irreversible nature.7 It did, however, in November 2012, implement reforms to its mandatory imposition of death penalty. The fact that both jurisdictions are at opposing ends of the capital punishment spectrum will make the analysis fascinating and informative. Chapter one of this paper examines the history of capital punishment in Singapore and Australia. A brief discussion of the ancient English legal system in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the international law obligations of Australia and Singapore will be explained. 3 Cf See, eg, Tania Jeyamohan, The Rights of Malaysia’s Ethnic Minorities- Is Democracy Dead (LLM Thesis, Murdoch University, 2004) <http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/116/2/02Whole.pdf>. 4 Jo Lennan and George Williams, ‘The Death Penalty in Australian Law’ (2012) 34 Sydney Law Review 659, 682-83; See also Lorraine Finlay, ‘Exporting the Death Penalty? Reconciling International Police Cooperation and the Abolition of the Death Penalty in Australia’ (2011) 33 Sydney Law Review 95. 5 Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Singapore, The Singapore Government's Response to Amnesty International's Report "Singapore - The Death Penalty: A Hidden Toll Of Executions" (24 July 2007) <http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74>; See also Human Rights Council, Working
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rule of Law and Urban Development
    The Rule of Law and Urban Development The transformation of Singapore from a struggling, poor country into one of the most affluent nations in the world—within a single generation—has often been touted as an “economic miracle”. The vision and pragmatism shown by its leaders has been key, as has its STUDIES URBAN SYSTEMS notable political stability. What has been less celebrated, however, while being no less critical to Singapore’s urban development, is the country’s application of the rule of law. The rule of law has been fundamental to Singapore’s success. The Rule of Law and Urban Development gives an overview of the role played by the rule of law in Singapore’s urban development over the past 54 years since independence. It covers the key principles that characterise Singapore’s application of the rule of law, and reveals deep insights from several of the country’s eminent urban pioneers, leaders and experts. It also looks at what ongoing and future The Rule of Law and Urban Development The Rule of Law developments may mean for the rule of law in Singapore. The Rule of Law “ Singapore is a nation which is based wholly on the Rule of Law. It is clear and practical laws and the effective observance and enforcement and Urban Development of these laws which provide the foundation for our economic and social development. It is the certainty which an environment based on the Rule of Law generates which gives our people, as well as many MNCs and other foreign investors, the confidence to invest in our physical, industrial as well as social infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Representation Constituencies
    Sembawang Sengkang West SMC GRC Hougang SMC Punggol East SMC Polling Marsiling- Yew Tee GRC Chua Chu Kang Nee Soon Pulau Ubin Pulau GRC GRC Tekong Bukit Holland- Panjang Bukit Timah Ang Mo Kio Pasir Ris- scorecard SMC GRC GRC Punggol GRC Hong Kah Here’s your guide to the polls. North SMC Bishan- Aljunied Tampines Toa Payoh GRC GRC You can ll in the results as they are GRC Jurong East Coast GRC released on www.straitstimes.com/ge2015 GRC and tick the winners as they are announced. West Marine Coast Tanjong Pagar Parade GRC GRC GRC Jalan Mountbatten Fengshan SMC Besar SMC Jurong GRC 6-member GRCs Island Bukit Batok MacPherson 5-member GRCs SMC Pulau Brani SMC Sentosa 4-member GRCs Pioneer SMC Yuhua SMC Radin Mas SMC Potong Pasir SMC SMCs GROUP REPRESENTATION CONSTITUENCIES Aljunied 148,142 voters Ang Mo Kio 187,771 voters Bishan-Toa Payoh 129,975 voters Votes cast Spoilt votes Votes cast Spoilt votes Votes cast Spoilt votes WP No. of votes PAP No. of votes PAP No. of votes Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, 50 Chen Show Mao, Lee Hsien Loong, 63 Ang Hin Kee, 49 Intan Azura Ng Eng Hen, 56 Josephine Teo, 47 Chong Kee Hiong, 59 54 Mokhtar, 39 49 Muhamad Faisal Pritam Singh, 39 Gan Thiam Poh, 51 Darryl David, 44 Koh Poh Koon, 43 Chee Hong Tat, 41 Saktiandi Supaat, Abdul Manap, 40 41 PAP No. of votes RP No. of votes SPP No. of votes Yeo Guat Kwang, Victor Lye K. Muralidharan M. Ravi, 46 Gilbert Goh Jesse Loo Benjamin Pwee Mohamad Hamim Law Kim Hwee, 55 54 Thiam Fatt, 53 Pillai, 47 Keow Wah, 54 Hoe Bock, 52 Yek Kwan, 47 Aliyas, 51 Chua Eng Leong, Shamsul Kamar, 43 Osman Sulaiman, Roy Ngerng Siva Chandran, 31 Bryan Long Mohamad Abdillah 44 40 Yi Ling, 34 Yaoguang, 37 Zamzuri, 30 • It made history in 2011 as the rst GRC to be won by an opposition party, • Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s constituency had the highest GRC vote • The PAP team here has the largest share of new faces apart from a defeat for the PAP which saw two Cabinet ministers lose their seats.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Singapore's Dominant Party System
    Tan, Kenneth Paul (2017) “Singapore’s Dominant Party System”, in Governing Global-City Singapore: Legacies and Futures after Lee Kuan Yew, Routledge 1 Singapore’s dominant party system On the night of 11 September 2015, pundits, journalists, political bloggers, aca- demics, and others in Singapore’s chattering classes watched in long- drawn amazement as the media reported excitedly on the results of independent Singa- pore’s twelfth parliamentary elections that trickled in until the very early hours of the morning. It became increasingly clear as the night wore on, and any optimism for change wore off, that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had swept the votes in something of a landslide victory that would have puzzled even the PAP itself (Zakir, 2015). In the 2015 general elections (GE2015), the incumbent party won 69.9 per cent of the total votes (see Table 1.1). The Workers’ Party (WP), the leading opposition party that had five elected members in the previous parliament, lost their Punggol East seat in 2015 with 48.2 per cent of the votes cast in that single- member constituency (SMC). With 51 per cent of the votes, the WP was able to hold on to Aljunied, a five-member group representation constituency (GRC), by a very slim margin of less than 2 per cent. It was also able to hold on to Hougang SMC with a more convincing win of 57.7 per cent. However, it was undoubtedly a hard defeat for the opposition. The strong performance by the PAP bucked the trend observed since GE2001, when it had won 75.3 per cent of the total votes, the highest percent- age since independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule of Law Without Democratization: Cambodia and Singapore in Comparative Perspective
    Griffith Asia Institute Research Paper Rule of Law without Democratization: Cambodia and Singapore in Comparative Perspective Stephen McCarthy and Kheang Un ii About the Griffith Asia Institute The Griffith Asia Institute produces relevant, interdisciplinary research on key developments in the politics, security and economies of the Asia-Pacific. By promoting knowledge of Australia’s changing region and its importance to our future, the Griffith Asia Institute seeks to inform and foster academic scholarship, public awareness and considered and responsive policy making. The Institute’s work builds on a long Griffith University tradition of providing multidisciplinary research on issues of contemporary significance in the region. Griffith was the first University in the country to offer Asian Studies to undergraduate students and remains a pioneer in this field. This strong history means that today’s Institute can draw on the expertise of some 50 Asia–Pacific focused academics from many disciplines across the university. The Griffith Asia Institute’s ‘Research Papers’ publish the institute’s policy-relevant research on Australia and its regional environment. The texts of published papers and the titles of upcoming publications can be found on the Institute’s website: www.griffith.edu.au/asiainstitute ‘Rule of Law without Democratization: Cambodia and Singapore in Comparative Perspective’ 2018 iii About the Authors Stephen McCarthy Stephen McCarthy is a Senior Lecturer in South East Asian politics in the School of Government and International Relations and a member of the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University. He received his PhD in political science from Northern Illinois University and has published widely on Burmese politics and South East Asia in international journals including The Pacific Review, Asian Survey, Pacific Affairs, Democratization and International Political Science Review.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Singapore Criminal Justice Process
    (2019) 31 SAcLJ 1042 (Published on e-First 23 July 2019) THE EVOLUTION OF THE SINGAPORE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS This article analyses the Singapore criminal justice process in the context of Herbert Packer’s Crime Control and Due Process models. It begins by analysing the features and goals of the two models before applying them to recent changes and developments in the Singapore criminal justice system. The article will focus in particular on developments in societal attitudes and values, legislative and executive policy, detention without trial, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), the statement of facts in guilty-plea cases, Kadar disclosure and the judicial discretion to exclude evidence. Following an analysis of these developments, the article will then assess the change in balance between the two models in the Singapore criminal justice system as well as comment on the trend and future of our criminal justice process. Keith Jieren THIRUMARAN LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore) I. Introduction 1 The criminal justice process is the backbone of society that provides the context in which the substantive criminal law operates. The process includes all the activities “that operate to bring the substantive law of crime to bear (or to keep it from coming to bear)” on accused persons.1 In his seminal book2 and article,3 Herbert Packer espoused two renowned models that elucidate the framework for analysing the criminal justice process: the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model. This article will analyse the unique Singapore criminal justice process to determine where it currently lies on the spectrum between the two models.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Vote Swing
    BT INFOGRAPHICS GE2015 Major vote swing Bukit Batok Sengkang West SMC SMC Sembawang Punggol East GRC SMC Hougang SMC Marsiling- Nee Soon Yew Tee GRC GRC Chua Chu Kang Ang Mo Kio Holland- GRC GRC Pasir Ris- Bukit Punggol GRC Hong Kah Timah North SMC GRC Aljunied Tampines Bishan- GRC GRC Toa Payoh East Coast GRC GRC West Coast Marine GRC Parade Tanjong Pagar GRC GRC Fengshan SMC MacPherson SMC Mountbatten SMC FOUR-MEMBER GRC Jurong GRC Potong Pasir SMC Chua Chu Kang Registered voters: 119,931; Pioneer Yuhua Bukit Panjang Radin Mas Jalan Besar total votes cast: 110,191; rejected votes: 2,949 SMC SMC SMC SMC SMC 76.89% 23.11% (84,731 votes) (25,460 votes) PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY (83 SEATS) WORKERS’ PARTY (6 SEATS) PEOPLE’S PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY POWER PARTY Gan Kim Yong Goh Meng Seng Low Yen Ling Lee Tze Shih SIX-MEMBER GRC Yee Chia Hsing Low Wai Choo Zaqy Mohamad Syafarin Sarif Ang Mo Kio Pasir Ris-Punggol 2011 winner: People’s Action Party (61.20%) Registered voters: 187,771; Registered voters: 187,396; total votes cast: 171,826; rejected votes: 4,887 total votes cast: 171,529; rejected votes: 5,310 East Coast Registered voters: 99,118; 78.63% 21.37% 72.89% 27.11% total votes cast: 90,528; rejected votes: 1,008 (135,115 votes) (36,711 votes) (125,021 votes) (46,508 votes) 60.73% 39.27% (54,981 votes) (35,547 votes) PEOPLE’S THE REFORM PEOPLE’S SINGAPORE ACTION PARTY PARTY ACTION PARTY DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE Ang Hin Kee Gilbert Goh J Puthucheary Abu Mohamed PEOPLE’S WORKERS’ Darryl David Jesse Loo Ng Chee Meng Arthero Lim ACTION PARTY PARTY Gan
    [Show full text]
  • What Singaporean Female Politicians Choose to Say in Parliament
    REFLEXIONEN ZU GENDER UND POLITISCHER PARTIZIPATION IN ASIEN Mirza, Naeem/Wagha, Wasim, 2010: Performance of Women Parliamentarians in the 12th Natio- nal Assembly (2002-2007). Islamabad. Musharraf, Pervez, 2006: In the Line of Fire. London. Mustafa, Zubeida, 2009: Where Were You, Dear Sisters? In: Dawn, 22.04.2009. Navarro, Julien, 2009: Les députés européens et leur rôle. Bruxelles. Phillips, Anne, 1995: The Politics of Presence. Oxford. PILDAT, 2002: Directory of the Members of the 12th National Assembly of Pakistan. Islamabad. Pitkin, Hanna F., 1967: The Concept of Representation. Berkeley. Rehfeld, Andrew, 2005: The Concept of Constituency. Political Representation, Democratic Legi- timacy, and Institutional Design. New York. Searing, Donald, 1994: Westminster’s World. Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge (Mass.). Shafqat, Saeed, 2002: Democracy and Political Transformation in Pakistan. In: Mumtaz, Soofia, Racine, Jean-Luc, Ali Imran, Anwar (eds.): Pakistan. The Contours of State and Society. Karachi, 209-235. Siddiqui, Niloufer, 2010: Gender Ideology and the Jamaat-e-Islami. In: Current Trends in Islamist Ideology. Vol. 10. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, 1988 (1985): Subaltern Studies. Deconstructing Historiography. In: Guha, Ranajit/Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (eds.). Subaltern Studies. New York, 3-32. Solberg, Kristin Elisabeth, 2010: New Laws Could Improve Women’s Health in Pakistan. In: The Lancet. 975 (9730), 1956. Special Committee on Constitutional Reform, 2010: Report. Islamabad. Talbot, Ian, 2005: Pakistan. A Modern History. London. UNDP, 2005: Political and legislative participation of women in Pakistan: Issues and perspectives. Weiss, Anita, 2001: Gendered Power Relations. Perpetuation and Renegotiation. In: Weiss Anita/ Gilani Zulfikar (eds.): Power and Civil Society in Pakistan. Oxford, 65-89. Yasin, Asim, 2007: Discord over PPP tickets for women’s seats.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Justice: a Study of National Judiciaries for The
    JUVENILE JUSTICE: A STUDY OF NATIONAL JUDICIARIES FOR THE UNITED NATIONS ASIA AND FAR EAST INSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS A focus on Singapore and selected comparisons with California (USA) & Australia Joseph Ozawa* I. SINGAPORE When Singapore is mentioned in various parts of the world, there are certain predicable responses, often focusing on Singaporean laws or the judicial system. “Oh, the place that makes chewing gum illegal!” or “The country that caned Michael Fey for spraying graffiti!” or “The nation that makes it a crime not to flush a toilet!” However, despite these sometimes amusing though derisive attributions, taking decisive action on minor infractions was subsequently popularized and advocated by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in their 1982 treatise entitled, “broken windows.” Here Wilson and Kelling argued that actually tolerating broken windows will actually result in larger and more extensive crimes. A successful anti-crime strategy is to fix problems when they are still minor. New York City government used much of Wilson’s and Kelling’s theory in “cleaning up” New York streets. Whatever the end product of “small laws,” Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but just half the crime rate. It is difficult finding many recent international crime comparisons and as researchers know, comparing crime rates is filled with methodological problems. However, in general, in 1993, the juvenile delinquency rate in Singapore was rated at 538 per 100,000 persons whereas Japan was rated 1,220 per 100,000 and the USA 5,460 per 100,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Members of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal
    Current members of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal Mr Arthur Faerua (Vanuatu), member, 1 June 2012 - 31/5/2016; 1/6/2016 Education 2010, University of South Pacific, Emalus Campus, Vanuatu Vanuatu mediation Practise Course • Skills in Conducting Mediation and Dispute Resolution • Certified by Supreme Court Vanuatu as an accredited Mediator 2004, University of South Pacific, Emalus Campus, Vanuatu Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Teaching (GCTT) • Skills in Delivery and Learning in a tertiary environment • Student-Oriented Learning for Pacific students 1997 – 1998, University of Waikato, New Zealand Masters of Law (LLM) • International Trade Law • Focus on Pacific Constitutions and economic development September - December 1996, University of Waikato, New Zealand Professional Legal Studies Admission as Barrister & Solicitor in the High Court of New Zealand 1992-1995, University of Waikato, New Zealand Bachelor of Laws (LLB) International Trade & Commercial Law Short-Term Trainings & Instructionals November 2008, Commodities Branch, Division on International Trade in Good and Services & Commodities, UNCTAD & Vanuatu National Codex Committee 1 National Capacity Building Workshop on Commodities- related Trade and Development, Poverty Reduction, Food Safety Standards and Quality Requirements, and Food Laws and Technical Regulations Trade & Food Safety Standards March 2005, WHO/FAO Training Course on the Management of Codex Contact Point and the National Codex System Capacity Building in Codex, Food Regulation and International
    [Show full text]
  • Here the Framework Has Great Potential an Active and Demonstrated Interest in the to Assist New Jurisdictions
    Framework Users – International Consortium for Court Excellence Your feedback is requested Newsletter Issue 4 – May 2015 The Executive Committee is What is the Framework? committed to ensuring the Framework and the associated tools, including the ICCE website, are as The International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) is a resource beneficial as possible for Consortium for assessing the performance of a court against seven detailed areas members and users. Consortium of excellence and provides guidance to courts intending to improve their members or those who are interested performance. The IFCE was first developed in 2008 and a Second in using the Framework can send any Edition was published in 2013 by the International Consortium for Court feedback they may have about the Excellence (ICCE), consisting of organisations from Europe, Asia, Framework and how we can improve Australia, and the United States. The IFCE uses the term ‘court’ for all the website by email to Liz bodies that are part of a country’s formal judicial system including courts Richardson at the ICCE Secretariat. and tribunals of general, limited or specialised jurisdiction, as well as secular or religious courts. Want to know more about the Framework? In this issue: Consortium news Interested in holding an IFCE Regional Forum in your region? Read about the latest Consortium news including the work of the These workshops give an: ICCE Executive Committee and Secretariat, visits to Melbourne from Chinese delegates and a membership update. (page 2) explanation of the Framework; International updates overview of the self-assessment questionnaire; Read about IFCE developments in: overview of how to interpret and Pacific Islands - page 3-4.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore's New Home-Grown Legal Team Li Xueying 639 Words 16 April 2008 Straits Times English (C) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
    Prime News Singapore's new home-grown legal team Li Xueying 639 words 16 April 2008 Straits Times English (c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited Law Minister, Chief Justice, Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are all from NUS A NEW generation of leaders is taking the helm in the legal field, and they have one thing in common: they went to the law school here. They are: incoming Law Minister K. Shanmugam, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Attorney-General Walter Woon and Solicitor-General Koh Kuat Jong. All four were home-groomed at the National University of Singapore, or the University of Singapore as it was known in earlier years. This common feature was highlighted by Mr Shanmugam yesterday in a wide-ranging interview with The Straits Times, his first since the announcement of his Cabinet appointments earlier this month. Giving his take on it, he said: 'To some extent, it would mean a good understanding of the local legal scene, legal training and development.' They also would have benefited from being involved in local law for many years, he added. Mr Shanmugam himself would have clocked 23 years as a top litigator here, by the time he takes over the Law Ministry mantle from Professor S. Jayakumar on May 1. On what will be the hallmark of the new slate of legal leadership - 'exciting and interesting' was how he put it - he said: 'Each person brings a different skill set to the table.' CJ Chan, 71, appointed two years ago, was a 'doyen' among corporate practitioners while Prof Woon, 52, who became the Attorney-General last Friday, is 'exceptionally bright' and has experience as a diplomat.
    [Show full text]