DOCSLIB.ORG

Sabine Gless Thomas Richter Editors a Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sabine Gless Thomas Richter Editors a Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 74 Sabine Gless Thomas Richter Editors Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice Volume 74 Series Editors Mortimer Sellers, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA James Maxeiner, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA Board of Editors Myroslava Antonovych, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Kyiv, Ukraine Nadia de Araújo, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Jasna Bakšic-Muftic, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina David L. Carey Miller, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Loussia P. Musse Félix, University of Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil Emanuel Gross, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel James E. Hickey Jr., Hofstra University, South Hempstead, NY, USA Jan Klabbers, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Cláudia Lima Marques, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil Aniceto Masferrer, University of Valencia, Valencia, Valencia, Spain Eric Millard, West Paris University, Nanterre Cedex, France Gabriël A. Moens, Curtin University, Perth WA, Australia Raul C. Pangalangan, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines Ricardo Leite Pinto, Lusíada University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal Mizanur Rahman, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh Keita Sato, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan Poonam Saxena, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics, London, UK Eduard Somers, University of Ghent, Gent, Belgium Xinqiang Sun, Shandong University, Shandong, China Tadeusz Tomaszewski, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland Jaap de Zwaan, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7888 Sabine Gless • Thomas Richter Editors Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules Editors Sabine Gless Thomas Richter Juristische Fakultät der Universität Basel Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany Basel, Switzerland ISSN 1534-6781 ISSN 2214-9902 (electronic) Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ISBN 978-3-030-12519-6 ISBN 978-3-030-12520-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019930360 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap- tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publi- cation does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Acknowledgements We are grateful to all contributors or their work, commitment, and passion for this project. We studied how exclusionary rules are established in the respective pro- cedural codes and how they are applied in practice, with a focus on case law, and conducted interviews in almost all relevant jurisdictions. We explored the potential of alternative and supplementary means of compelling law enforcement to respect human rights, including criminal sanctions, disciplinary action, and civil liability. Throughout the project, we learned a great deal from each other. National issues and legal solutions, as well as comparative issues and basic principles, were discussed at two workshops and conferences. The first meeting took place in March 2016 in Taipei, Taiwan, and was co-organized by the Taiwan Ministry of Justice. We are especially grateful to Pauline Tsai for her exceptional support. The second meeting occurred in May 2017 in Basel, Switzerland, and received remarkable financial support from the Sino-Swiss Science and Technology Cooperation Program of the Swiss National Research Foundation. Major financial funds for this project, including the publication of its results, have been provided by the Swiss National Research Foundation and without it, the project could never have been realized. We are very grateful for the Foundation’s generous assistance and enduring support. Last but not least, we wish to thank MLaw Laura Macula for her meticulous planning and monitoring throughout the project and all her precious advice, stud. iur. Lia Börlin for the time and energy she dedicated to checking references and material, and Claudine Abt for her support in finalizing all the papers for publication. Basel, Switzerland Sabine Gless November 2018 Thomas Richter v Contents Introduction .............................................. 1 Sabine Gless and Thomas Richter Part I Comparative Perspectives The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Swiss Perspective ........................................ 15 Laura Macula The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective ...................................... 61 Thomas Weigend Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rights and the Search for the Truth ..... 93 Jenia Iontcheva Turner The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Taiwanese Perspective .................................... 131 Yu-Hsiung Lin, Shih-Fan Wang, Chung-Yen Chen, Tsai-Chen Tsai and Chiou-Ming Tsai The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Chinese Perspective ...................................... 163 Na Jiang Criminal Justice and the Exclusion of Incriminating Statements in Singapore .............................................. 213 Hock Lai Ho vii viii Contents Part II Exclusionary Rules—Quo Vadis The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview .................................... 255 Jenia Iontcheva Turner and Thomas Weigend The Fair Trial Rationale for Excluding Wrongfully Obtained Evidence ................................................. 283 Hock Lai Ho Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China: Observation from Historical and Empirical Perspectives ...................... 307 Weimin Zuo and Rongjie Lan Securing a Fair Trial Through Exclusionary Rules: Do Theory and Practice Form a Well-Balanced Whole? ..................... 329 Susanne Knickmeier Exclusionary Rules—Is It Time for Change? ..................... 349 Sabine Gless and Laura Macula Editors and Contributors About the Editors Sabine Gless teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, and international criminal law at the University of Basel, Switzerland. Her research includes comparative work in evidence law and international cooperation with a focus on human rights issues and exclusionary rules. Thomas Richter served as the Head of the East Asian Department of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Law in Freiburg, Germany. In this capacity, he analyzed the criminal law and criminal procedure law of the People’s Republic of China and co-directed a comparative study on non-prosecution policies in Germany and the People’s Republic of China. In cooperation with the German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR), he evaluated the Human Rights Dialogue between the People’s Republic of China and Switzerland (2006/2007). Most recently, Thomas Richter assessed the Rule of Law Programme for Asia instituted by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (2013). His research interests include criminal law, human rights law, and environmental law in East and Southeast Asia, espe- cially in China. Contributors Chung-Yen Chen University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Sabine Gless Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland Hock Lai Ho Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore, Singapore Na Jiang College for Criminal Law Science, Beijing Normal University (BNU 北 京师范大学), Beijing, China ix x Editors and Contributors Susanne Knickmeier Department of Criminology, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany Rongjie Lan Law School, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China Yu-Hsiung Lin National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan Laura Macula MLaw, Faculty
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]
  • Opening of the Legal Year 2019
    ISSUE 01 • MAY 2019 OPENING OF THE LEGAL STATE COURTS TOWERS: FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS YEAR 2019: THE NEXT STRUCTURAL WORKS WORKPLAN 2019: CHAPTER IN OUR JOURNEY COMPLETED EVERY OUTCOME – A WAY FORWARD JUDICIARY TIMES • MAY 2019 02 HIGHLIGHTS OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2019: HIGHLIGHTS THE NEXT CHAPTER Opening of the Legal Year 2019: 01 The Next Chapter in Our Journey IN OUR JOURNEY State Courts Towers: 03 Structural Works Completed Family Justice Courts Workplan 2019: 04 Every Outcome – A Way Forward EVENTS & INITIATIVES State Courts Workplan 2019: 05 2020 and Beyond Supreme Court Strategic Compass 06 2019 - 2022 SICC Conference 07 Judicial Insolvency Network Meeting 07 The 2nd Asean Family Judges Forum 08 CAPS Dialogue with Family Service 08 Centres Family Mediation Symposium 09 State Courts Re-appoint Volunteer 09 Mediators The Executive Leadership Programme 10 Led by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, the Supreme Court Bench adorned their ceremonial robes to Counter-terrorism Exercise at the 11 herald the Opening of Legal Year on 7 January at the Supreme Supreme Court Court Auditorium. Invited guests from the legal community, including legal luminaries from abroad, were addressed by Free Food and Books Available in 11 Chief Justice, Attorney-General Lucien Wong, and Mr Gregory the Courthouse Vijayendran, SC, President of the Law Society, who took stock of the work done in the past year, and set out the directions ahead. Read the full response at: www.supremecourt.gov.sg/news/speeches/ NOTABLE VISITS 12 In his address, Chief Justice exhorted the legal community to shift their collective attention to prepare themselves for a Bringing the day’s event to a close, dramatically changing legal landscape that is being reshaped Chief Justice and Mrs Menon hosted WHAT’S NEW? 15 by three significant forces: globalisation, technology, and the the annual Judiciary Dinner at the growing commercialisation of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Criminal Procedure Code 2010
    (2011) 23 SAcLJ Modernising the Criminal Justice Framework 23 MODERNISING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 The concept of “balancing” prevalent in criminal justice discourse is premised on a paradigm where “state” and “individual” interests are perpetually in conflict. This article outlines the key components of the new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and discusses another dimension of the state- individual relationship. Rather than being inherently incompatible, synergistic common goals can, on occasion, be pursued between the State and an accused. The article will also consider areas in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 where conflicts between “state” and “individual” interests have in fact arisen, and will outline the pragmatic approach that has been adopted towards their resolution. Melanie CHNG* LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (Harvard); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore); Assistant Director, Ministry of Law. The criminal process is at the heart of the criminal justice system. It is not only a subject of great practical importance; it is also a reflection of our ideals and values as to the way in which we can accord justice to both the guilty and to the innocent.[1] I. Introduction 1 The recent legislative amendments to Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) signify a new chapter in the continuing evolution of Singapore’s criminal justice process. The new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“New CPC”),2 which came into force on * The opinions expressed in this article are those of its author and are not representative of the official position or policies of the Singapore government. The author is grateful to Mr Amarjeet Singh SC, Ms Jennifer Marie SC, Mr Bala Reddy, Professor Michael Hor, Mr Subhas Anandan, Ms Valerie Thean and Mr Desmond Lee for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • (Dawn Tan 11 Mar 10) Final
    About Dawn Dawn graduated with First Class Honours from the National University of Singapore Law School in 1997. In 2002 she took a Master of Laws degree from the Harvard Law School where she again achieved academic distinction. Dawn completed her pupilage under Mr Michael Hwang, S.C. at Allen & Gledhill (now Allen & Gledhill LLP) and was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in May 1998. Dawn is also admitted as a Solicitor in England and Dawn Tan Ly-Ru Wales and an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law of the State of New York. Between 1998 and 1999, Dawn was a Justices’ Law Clerk in the Chambers of the former Chief Justice, Mr Yong Pung How. She then served as an Assistant Registrar at the Supreme Court Contact Details Registry and concurrently took up teaching appointments at the National University of Singapore Law School and the then T: 656.225.3819 Department of Law of the Singapore Management University. F: 656.224.1891 Between 2004 and 2006, Dawn was Deputy Director Trade at the Ministry of Trade and Industry where she was involved in the E: [email protected] formulation and implementation of Singapore’s foreign trade policy. She negotiated the Trade in Goods, Rules of Origin and Qualifications Trade Remedies Chapters of Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements with India, Panama, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei (known as LL.B. (Hons), National University of the “Pacific 4”), Kuwait and Pakistan. She also advised on the Singapore (1997) legality of actions taken by other countries, such as anti-dumping LL.M., Harvard Law School (2002) measures, against Singapore companies.
    [Show full text]
  • 331KB***Administrative and Constitutional
    (2016) 17 SAL Ann Rev Administrative and Constitutional Law 1 1. ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THIO Li-ann BA (Oxon) (Hons), LLM (Harvard), PhD (Cantab); Barrister (Gray’s Inn, UK); Provost Chair Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Introduction 1.1 In terms of administrative law, the decided cases showed some insight into the role of courts in relation to: handing over town council management to another political party after a general election, the susceptibility of professional bodies which are vested with statutory powers like the Law Society review committee to judicial review; as well as important observations on substantive legitimate expectations and developments in exceptions to the rule against bias on the basis of necessity, and how this may apply to private as opposed to statutory bodies. Many of the other cases affirmed existing principles of administrative legality and the need for an evidential basis to sustain an argument. For example, a bare allegation of bias without evidence cannot be sustained; allegations of bias cannot arise when a litigant is simply made to follow well-established court procedures.1 1.2 Most constitutional law cases revolved around Art 9 issues. Judicial observations on the nature or scope of specific constitutional powers were made in cases not dealing directly with constitutional arguments. See Kee Oon JC in Karthigeyan M Kailasam v Public Prosecutor2 noted the operation of a presumption of legality and good faith in relation to acts of public officials; the Prosecution, in particular, is presumed “to act in the public interest at all times”, in relation to all prosecuted cases from the first instance to appellate level.
    [Show full text]
  • The War on Terrorism and the Internal Security Act of Singapore
    Damien Cheong ____________________________________________________________ Selling Security: The War on Terrorism and the Internal Security Act of Singapore DAMIEN CHEONG Abstract The Internal Security Act (ISA) of Singapore has been transformed from a se- curity law into an effective political instrument of the Singapore government. Although the government's use of the ISA for political purposes elicited negative reactions from the public, it was not prepared to abolish, or make amendments to the Act. In the wake of September 11 and the international campaign against terrorism, the opportunity to (re)legitimize the government's use of the ISA emerged. This paper argues that despite the ISA's seeming importance in the fight against terrorism, the absence of explicit definitions of national security threats, either in the Act itself, or in accompanying legislation, renders the ISA susceptible to political misuse. Keywords: Internal Security Act, War on Terrorism. People's Action Party, Jemaah Islamiyah. Introduction In 2001/2002, the Singapore government arrested and detained several Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) operatives under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for engaging in terrorist activities. It was alleged that the detained operatives were planning to attack local and foreign targets in Singa- pore. The arrests outraged human rights groups, as the operation was reminiscent of the government's crackdown on several alleged Marxist conspirators in1987. Human rights advocates were concerned that the current detainees would be dissuaded from seeking legal counsel and subjected to ill treatment during their period of incarceration (Tang 1989: 4-7; Frank et al. 1991: 5-99). Despite these protests, many Singaporeans expressed their strong support for the government's actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Team Connects 3.2021
    3/2021 EDITOR’S PICK HTVN WEBINAR: CONNECTING YOU WITH THE HOME TEAM The Home Team Volunteer Network (HTVN) organised its third webinar via Zoom on 24 February evening. Titled Staying Vigilant Against Scams, SPF colleagues shared useful tips on how to avoid being scammed. Other highlights include Q&A segment related to the topic and dialogue session with both Co-Chairmen of HTVN, MOS Desmond Tan and A/P Ho Peng Kee. For Home Team volunteers who did not manage to join us, fret not as there will be more to come! Photo: HTVN Facebook HIGHLIGHTS ‘HTVN ASKS’ WITH MOS DESMOND TAN MOS Desmond Tan, Co-Chairman of the Home Team Volunteer Network (HTVN), takes on questions relating to HTVN and even a little bit about himself. Thank you to all Home Team Volunteers for the questions asked via our Facebook and Instagram stories. >> Check out the Q&A on HTVN FB START FROM YOUNG On 19th February, SCDF held the finale of its Junior Civil Defence Lionhearter Challenge virtually on Zoom. The Challenge saw close to 150 students from 28 primary schools participating in a series of cool lifesaving activities and Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Chairman of the Home Team Volunteer Network, graced the virtual event. Great work, everyone! #ANationOfLifesavers >> Check out highlights from the Challenge on SCDF FB PHOTO: SCDF COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (COS) DEBATE 2021 At the COS Debate in Parliament on 1 March 2021, Minister K Shanmugam, Second Minister Josephine Teo, Minister of State Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim and Minister of State Desmond Tan outlined key initiatives undertaken by the Home Team to keep Singapore safe and secure.
    [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]
  • JUDICIARY TIMES - Issue 01
    JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 ISSUE 01 | MAY 2018 JUDICIARY TIMES Opening of Twelve Key Initiatives The Family Justice Legal Year 2018: Announced at Courts Workplan 2018: Towards a Future- State Courts In the Next Phase Ready Legal Sector Workplan 2018 1 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 CONTENTS ISSUE 01 | MAY 2018 01 03 04 OPENING OF JUDGES AND TWELVE KEY LEGAL YEAR 2018: INTERNATIONAL InitiatiVES Towards A JUDGES ATTEND ANNOUNCED at FUTURE-Ready SICC 2018 State Courts LEGAL Sector WORKPLAN 2018 05 06 07 International THE Family Court AND TRIBUNAL IT DEVELOPMENTS JUSTICE Courts Administrators AND ITS IMPACT WORKPLAN 2018: attend THE ON LAW IN THE NEXT PHASE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP ProGRAMME 2 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 07 08 08 SMU SCHOOL Volunteer TRAINING FOR OF LAW HOSTS Mediators newly recruited LUNCH FOR attend TRAINING Volunteer SUPREME COURT ProGRAMME Support PERSONS BENCH 09 09 10 State Courts State Courts THE JUDICIARY introduces launcH GIVES Back to DOCUMENTS-Only PHASE 2 SOCIETY process FOR OF THE CJTS CIVIL CASES 11-13 14 15 15 16 NotaBLE WHAT’S AWARDS & UPCOMING BEHIND THE VISITS NEW ACCOLADES EVENTS SCENES 3 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 HIGHLIGHTS OPENING OF LEGAL YEAR 2018: Towards A FUTURE - Ready LEGAL Sector The Opening of the Legal Year on 8 January was Chief Justice also highlighted the challenges ahead for marked by the traditional ceremony that took place the legal fraternity and the courts, which included in the morning at the Supreme Court Auditorium, the potential disruptive force of technology and the followed by the Judiciary Dinner held at the Istana.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Green QC, Fountain Court
    Finance, Property and Business Litigation in a Changing World 25-26 April 2013 Supreme Court Auditorium Organisers: Finance, Property and Business Litigation in a Changing World Plenary Session 1: Finance Litigation Chairperson Mr Alvin Yeo SC , WongPartnership LLP Speakers Ms Geraldine Andrews QC, Essex Court Chambers Mr Peter de Verneuil Smith, 3Verulam Buildings Mr Hri Kumar Nair SC, Drew & Napier LLC FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES LITIGATION Geraldine Andrews Q.C. Essex Court Chambers The 2008 financial crisis Sept-Oct 2008 – the eye of the storm • 7th Sept - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae effectively nationalized by US Government. • 14th Sept - Merrill Lynch shotgun wedding to Bank of America amidst fears of liquidity crisis • 15th Sept - Lehman Bros filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. Periodically thereafter various of its subsidiaries did the same, including, on 3 Oct, LBSF, the dedicated subsidiary for derivative transactions. • 17th Sept - AIG, the USA䇻s largest insurer, was bailed out by US Govt with a loan of $85bn (insufficient funds to meet its CDS insurance obligations) Geraldine Andrews QC, Essex Court Chambers FINANCE, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS LITIGATION IN A CHANGING WORLD Sept-Oct 2008 – the eye of the storm • 17th Sept – Lloyds TSB takes over HBOS following a run on HBOS shares • 25th Sept – Washington Mutual sold to JP Morgan Chase for $1.9bn. • 3 Oct – US Congress approves 700bn bailout of the banks – the biggest financial rescue in US history. • 6-10 Oct - The worst week for the global stock market for 75 years. The Dow Jones index lost 22.1%, its worst week on record. Geraldine Andrews QC, Essex Court Chambers FINANCE, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS LITIGATION IN A CHANGING WORLD Sept-Oct 2008 – the eye of the storm • 7 Oct - Icelandic banking system collapses • 11 Oct Highest volatility day recorded in the 112 year history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
    [Show full text]
  • Giving Report 2010/2011 Report Giving
    Medicine Engineering Public Policy Music Business Law Arts and Social Sciences National University Singapore of GIVING REPORT 2010/2011 GIVING REPORT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE National University of Singapore Shaw Foundation Alumni House 2010/2011 #03-01, 11 Kent Ridge Drive Singapore 119244 t: +65 6516 8000 / 1-800-DEVELOP f: +65 6775 9161 e: [email protected] www.giving.nus.edu.sg PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT Dear alumni and friends, Your support this past year has provided countless opportunities for the National Science University of Singapore (NUS), particularly From music to for the students who are at the heart of our University. For example, approximately medicine, your 1,700 students received bursaries. Around 1,400 of these were partially supported by gift today makes the Annual Giving campaign and about 300 are Named Bursaries. Thank you for Computing a difference to a making this possible. student’s tomorrow Our future is very exciting. NUS University Town will open its doors in the coming months and the Yale-NUS College will follow a few years later. These new President’s Statement........................................... 01 initiatives will allow NUS to continue pursuing its goal of offering students, Thank You For Your Contribution.................... 02 from the entire NUS campus, a broader Education { 02 } education that will challenge them and Research { 06 } position them well for the future. Service { 10 } Design and Environment Through these and other innovations, Annual Giving – NUS is also breaking new ground in Making A Difference Together......................... 14 higher education, both in Singapore and the region. The NUS experience will Strength In Numbers............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Class Timetable for Lecture/Seminar
    ACADEMIC YEAR 2019/2020 - SEMESTER 2 (1920) Page 1: Semester 2 AY19-20 Timetable_(ver 9 January 2020) Version 9 January 2020 MONDAY 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 LC1016 LARC LECTURE LC1003 LAW OF CONTRACT LECTURE {Yale 2} LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL {Yale 2} LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL BURTON ONG, DORA NEO, SANDRA BOOYSEN, KELRY LOI, {Yale 2} ELEANOR WONG, LIM LEI TAN ZHONG XING, ALLEN SNG, MINDY CHEN-WISHART Weekly THENG, SONITA JEYAPATHY, RUBY LEE YEAR 1 CORE 1 YEAR LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL LC2007 CONSTITUTIONAL & ADMIN LAW LECTURE {Yale LC2006A, B & C EQUITY & TRUSTS SECTIONS ((A) B) & (C) {Yale 4} 3} LC2006D, E & F EQUITY & TRUSTS SECTIONS (D), (E) & (F) RACHEL LEOW (A); KELRY LOI (B); TAN YOCK LIN (C) THIO LI-ANN, SWATI JHAVERI, KEVIN TAN, DIAN SHAH, RACHEL LEOW (D); TAN YOCK LIN (E); TAN WEI MENG (F) CORE YEAR 2 Weekly JACLYN NEO, MARCUS TEO LC6378 Doctoral Workshop DAMIAN CHALMERS D CORE Weekly G LL4044V/LL5044V/LL6044V MEDIATION LL4019V/LL5019/ LL6019V CREDIT & SECURITY LL4063V/LL5063V/LL6063V BUSINESS & FINANCE FOR LAWYERS LL4371/LL5371/LL6371 CHARITY LAW TODAY INTENSIVE [WEEK 1-3] JOEL LEE, MARCUS LIM DORA NEO STEPHEN PHUA/JAMES LEONG MATTHEW HARDING LL4372/LL5372/LL6372 INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW INTENSIVE LL4402/LL5402/LL6402 CORPORATE INSOLVENCY LL4024V/LL5024V/LL6024V INDONESIAN LAW LL4205V/LL5205V/LL6205V/LLD5205V MARITIME CONFLICT OF LAWS [WEEK 1-3] WEE MENG SENG GARY
    [Show full text]