DOCSLIB.ORG

Legal Service Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2018 OUR MISSION The mission of the Legal Service Commission is to maintain a dedicated corps of officers with integrity and ability to staff the Judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Legal Service departments of various Ministries and other arms of Government. LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION CONTENTS 02 Foreword by The President, Legal Service Commission 05 Leadership 13 A Year in Review 22 Milestone Training Programmes 27 Pride in Service LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION 1 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon President Legal Service Commission Foreword by THE PRESIDENT, LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION 2018 was, by any account, an eventful Our Legal Service Officers (“LSOs”) year for Singapore. It presented new played an important role in protecting opportunities for growth and produced our society against new threats and moments for celebration, but also helping our economy capitalise on revealed our vulnerabilities and reminded emerging opportunities. LSOs led us of the need to secure Singapore evidence before the Committee of against internal and external threats. Inquiry that was convened following We experienced the largest data breach the cyberattack on SingHealth’s patient in our history when about 1.5m patients database system and advised Government of SingHealth’s clinics and polyclinics on the digitalisation of Government had their personal particulars illegally services. They helped to establish legislative accessed and copied. For many months, frameworks for the protection of the scourge of online falsehoods was the vulnerable persons, the promotion of subject of intense public debate. Towards fairer results in employment disputes, and the end of the year, we encountered the modernisation of our laws on debt external challenges to our territorial restructuring and insolvency. waters and airspace. In the area of enforcement and the courts, In this age of uncertainty, the role of the LSOs maintained a strong stance against Singapore Legal Service in strengthening the perpetrators of crime without the Rule of Law and ensuring the fair neglecting the rehabilitation of offenders. and efficient administration of justice They worked with enforcement agencies has never been more important. The to ensure that cases involving sex crimes Singapore Legal Service continued to and abuse of foreign domestic workers discharge those duties with dedication were dealt with expeditiously, and launched and distinction in 2018, advancing a scheme to match offenders with Singapore’s interests both locally and volunteer befrienders so as to support abroad while working to address our their reintegration into society. LSOs vulnerabilities. also sought to promote fair and efficient LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION 3 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 dispute resolution while ensuring that appears to be under pressure. These are the courts remain accessible to all who choppy waters for Singapore, whose seek redress. small and open economy remains heavily dependent on uninterrupted flows of They continued to pursue civil justice trade and finance. reforms, created a simplified and cost- efficient track for the conduct of simple The Singapore Legal Service will continue trials, and introduced conciliation as an to play an essential role in ensuring that additional alternative dispute resolution Singapore remains on sure footing, both tool. internally and externally, as a safe home for our people, a stable environment On the international plane, LSOs tirelessly for businesses, and a contributing and defended Singapore’s interests in interstate credible member of the international negotiations and before international community. As we reflect on the courts and tribunals. They collaborated accomplishments of 2018, I call upon with their counterparts abroad to all of us in the Singapore Legal Service promote legal convergence in the ASEAN to remember that by faithfully and region and in the fields of cross-border ably discharging our respective duties, insolvency and international commercial we are each helping to secure the future dispute resolution. of our country in a challenging global environment. All this is but a snapshot of the sterling work that LSOs in the Singapore Legal Service accomplished in 2018. But the unending task of sustaining Singapore Chief Justice will require our continued dedication. Sundaresh Menon We inhabit a world that is increasingly President polarised and in which multilateralism Legal Service Commission 4 LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2018 LEADERSHIP LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION The Legal Service Commission (“LSC”) (iii) at least one but not more than is constituted under Part IX of the two persons nominated by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Prime Minister. (“Constitution”). Article 111(1) of the Constitution states that there shall be an In addition, if the Chief Justice, the LSC whose jurisdiction shall extend to Chairman of the PSC or the Prime Minister, all officers in the Singapore Legal Service as the case may be, nominates two persons, (“Legal Service”). at least one must be a person who has, for an aggregate period of not less than Article 111(2) and Article 111(2A) of the ten years, been a qualified person within Constitution provide that the LSC shall the meaning of section 2(1) of the Legal consist of: Profession Act (Cap. 161). These Members of the LSC shall hold office for such period (a) the Chief Justice, as President; (being not shorter than three years and not longer than five years) as the President (b) the Attorney-General; of Singapore may specify and shall be eligible for reappointment. (c) the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (“PSC”); and The LSC has the duty, under Article 111(3) of the Constitution, to appoint, confirm, (d) at least three but not more than six emplace on the permanent establishment, other Members, each of whom shall promote, transfer, dismiss and exercise be appointed by the President of disciplinary control over officers in the Singapore if he, acting in his Legal Service. discretion, concurs with the advice of the person nominating the The Chief Justice/President of the LSC Member(s), based on the following recorded his deep appreciation to arrangements: Mr Eddie Teo who completed his term as an ex-officio Member of the (i) at least one but not more than LSC on 31 July 2018 after having served two persons nominated by the with distinction as a Member from Chief Justice; 1 August 2008. Mr Eddie Teo retired as the Chairman of the PSC on the same (ii) at least one but not more than date. two persons nominated by the Chairman of the PSC; and 6 LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2018 Mr Lee Tzu Yang, upon his appointment as the Chairman of the PSC effective Legal Service Special 1 August 2018, assumed appointment Personnel Boards as an ex-officio Member of the LSC (in place of Mr Eddie Teo). The President of Article 111AA of the Constitution provides Singapore, concurring with the nomination for the establishment of one or more of the Prime Minister, approved the personnel boards to exercise all or any of appointment of Ms Goh Swee Chen as the powers and functions of the LSC under a Member of the LSC effective 1 August Article 111. The powers and functions 2018 for a period of three years. of the LSC were devolved, from December 2007, to the Legal Service The LSC comprised, as at 31 December Personnel Boards, except for the power 2018, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon as to dismiss and exercise disciplinary control the President; and the Attorney-General over LSOs and all powers of the LSC in Mr Lucien Wong, the Chairman of the PSC relation to LSOs who hold appointments Mr Lee Tzu Yang, Judge of Appeal Justice of and above the “threshold” grade of Andrew Phang, Judge of Appeal Justice Superscale LSO Grade 2, including the Steven Chong, Justice Lee Seiu Kin, power to nominate officers for appointment Mr Gautam Banerjee, Mr Adrian Chan and or promotion to that grade. Ms Goh Swee Chen as Members. In 2018, the LSC deliberated and decided on various matters concerning the Legal Service, including the award of remuneration components to LSOs at and above Superscale LSO Grade 2; the suitability of LSOs for promotion to Superscale LSO Grade 2 and above; and refinements to the human resource framework in the Legal Service. In 2018, the Legal Service Special Personnel Boards continued to exercise the powers and functions of appointment, confirmation, emplacement on the permanent establishment, promotion and award of remuneration components, and transfers to and from the Legal Service Scheme of Service of LSOs below Superscale LSO Grade 2, and the re-postings of LSOs within the respective Branches. LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION 7 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 The Legal Service Commission (Left to Right) Front row: Mr Lucien Wong (Attorney-General), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (President, LSC), Mr Lee Tzu Yang (Chairman, PSC) (Left to Right) Back row: Mr Adrian Chan, Justice Steven Chong, Justice Andrew Phang, Justice Lee Seiu Kin, Ms Goh Swee Chen Not in picture: Mr Gautam Banerjee 8 LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2018 Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board (Left to Right): Justice Lee Seiu Kin, Justice Andrew Phang, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (Chairman, Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board), Justice Steven Chong The Legal Service Judicial Branch Special The Legal Service Judicial Branch Personnel Board continued to have Special Personnel Board comprised, as jurisdiction over LSOs below Superscale at 31 December 2018, Chief Justice
Recommended publications
  • This Paper Has Been Published in the Journal of Business Law and The

    This Paper Has Been Published in the Journal of Business Law and The

    Supreme Court of Singapore, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Singapore 178879, t: (65)-6332-1020 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ This paper has been published in the Journal of Business Law and the Supreme Court Library Queensland gratefully acknowledges the permission of the editor, Professor Robert Merkin, to reprint it in the Yearbook. A version of this essay was delivered at the Current Legal Issues Seminar in the Banco Court on 12 September 2013. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Ms Andrea Gan and Mr Jonathan Yap, Justices’ Law Clerks, Supreme Court of Singapore, as well as to Asst Prof Goh Yihan of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to dedicate this essay to all the participants who displayed an extraordinary (and, I might add, rare) degree of enthusiasm and (above all) friendship. All errors remain mine alone. Further, all views expressed in this essay are personal views only and do not reflect the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Andrew Phang Our Vision: Excellence in judicial education and research. Our Mission: To provide and inspire continuing judicial learning and research to enhance the competency and professionalism of judges. The Challenge of Principled Gap-Filling — A Study of Implied Terms in a Comparative Context by The Honourable Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong* There has been a veritable wealth of literature on implied terms — ranging from doctoral theses1 to book chapters,2 articles3 and (more recently) a book.4 What accounts for this interest? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that it is an extremely important topic with at least two important functions — one substantive, the other theoretical.
  • Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012

    Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012

    PRESS RELEASE AWARD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF QUALIFYING FOREIGN LAW PRACTICE LICENCES The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) invited applications for the second round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licences on 1 July 2012. Twenty-three applications were received by the closing date of 31 August 2012. 2 QFLP licences will be awarded to the following four firms (listed in alphabetical order): Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day; Linklaters, and Sidley Austin. 3 The firms will have up to six months from 1 April 2013 to commence their operations as QFLPs, and their licences will be valid for an initial period of five years from the respective start dates. Background 4 The QFLP scheme was introduced in 2008 following the recommendations of the Committee to Develop the Legal Sector chaired by Justice V K Rajah. The Committee, which included senior lawyers from top local firms, assessed that local firms and local lawyers would benefit from the increased foreign presence and competition over time. 5 The QFLP licences allow Foreign Law Practices (FLPs) to practise in permitted areas of Singapore law1. The scheme seeks to support the growth of key economic sectors, grow the legal sector, as well as to offer additional 1 Permitted areas are all areas except domestic areas of litigation and general practice, for example, criminal law, retail conveyancing, family law and administrative law. The QFLPs can practise the permitted areas through Singapore-qualified lawyers with practising certificates or foreign lawyers holding the foreign practitioner certificate. 1 opportunities for our lawyers. A total of six FLPs2 were awarded QFLP licences in the first round in 2008.
  • The Development of Singapore Law: a Bicentennial Retrospective1

    The Development of Singapore Law: a Bicentennial Retrospective1

    (2020) 32 SAcLJ 804 (Published on e-First 8 May 2020) THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGAPORE LAW: A BICENTENNIAL RETROSPECTIVE1 The present article reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year. It is not only about origins but also about growth – in particular, the autochthonous or indigenous growth of the Singapore legal system (particularly since the independence of Singapore as a nation state on 9 August 1965). The analysis of this growth is divided into quantitative as well as qualitative parts. In particular, the former constitutes an empirical analysis which attempts – for the very first time − to tell the development of Singapore law through numbers, building on emerging techniques in data visualisation and empirical legal studies. Andrew PHANG Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore. GOH Yihan Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University. Jerrold SOH Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University; Co-Founder, Lex Quanta. I. Introduction 1 The present article, which reviews (in broad brushstrokes) the status of Singapore law during its bicentennial year since the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819, is of particular significance as English law constitutes the foundation of Singapore law. The role of Raffles and his successors, therefore, could not have been more directly 1 All views expressed in the present article are personal views only and do not reflect in any way the views of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Singapore Management University or Lex Quanta. Although this article ought, ideally, to have been published last year, the immense amount of case law that had to be analysed has led to a slight delay.
  • SOL LLM Brochure 2021 Copy

    SOL LLM Brochure 2021 Copy

    SMU – Right in the Heart of Asia’s Hub, Singapore Masters of Laws In the dynamic, cosmopolitan hub that is Singapore, you will find a vibrant city-state that pulses with the diversity of both East and West. LL.M. in Judicial Studies Situated at the cross-roads of the world, Singapore is home to multinational companies and thousands of small and medium-sized LL.M. in Cross-border Business and Finance Law in Asia enterprises flourishing in a smart city renowned for its business excellence and connectivity. With its strong infrastructure, political Dual LL.M. in Commercial Law (Singapore & London) stability and respect for intellectual property rights, this City in a Garden offers you unique opportunities to develop as a global citizen. Thorough. Transnational. Transformative. Tapping into the energy of the city is a university with a difference — the Singapore Management University. Our six schools: the School of Accountancy, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, School of Computing and Information Systems, School of Economics, Yong Pung How School of Law, and School of Social Sciences form the country’s only city campus, perfectly sited to foster strategic links with businesses and the community. Modelled after the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, SMU generates leading-edge research with global impact and produces broad-based, creative and entrepreneurial leaders for a knowledge-based economy. Discover a multi-faceted lifestyle right here at SMU, in the heart of Singapore. The SMU Masters Advantage GLOBAL RECOGNITION SMU is globally recognised as one of the best specialised universities in Asia and the world.
  • Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon

    Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon

    RESPONSE BY CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2018 Monday, 8 January 2018 Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Members of the Bar, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen: I. Introduction 1. It is my pleasure, on behalf of the Judiciary, to welcome you all to the Opening of this Legal Year. I particularly wish to thank the Honourable Chief Justice Prof Dr M Hatta Ali and Justice Takdir Rahmadi of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the Right Honourable Tun Md Raus Sharif, Chief Justice of Malaysia, and our other guests from abroad, who have made the effort to travel here to be with us this morning. II. Felicitations 2. 2017 was a year when we consolidated the ongoing development of the Supreme Court Bench, and I shall begin my response with a brief recap of the major changes, most of which have been alluded to. 1 A. Court of Appeal 3. Justice Steven Chong was appointed as a Judge of Appeal on 1 April 2017. This was in anticipation of Justice Chao Hick Tin’s retirement on 27 September 2017, after five illustrious decades in the public service. In the same context, Justice Andrew Phang was appointed Vice-President of the Court of Appeal. While we will feel the void left by Justice Chao’s retirement, I am heartened that we have in place a strong team of judges to lead us forward; and delighted that Justice Chao will continue contributing to the work of the Supreme Court, following his appointment, a few days ago, as a Senior Judge.
  • Singapore C of a on Consideration in Variation of Contracts.Pdf

    Singapore C of a on Consideration in Variation of Contracts.Pdf

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 106 Civil Appeal No 45 of 2019 Between Ma Hongjin … Appellant And SCP Holdings Pte Ltd … Respondent In the matter of HC/Suit No 765 of 2016 Between Ma Hongjin … Plaintiff And (1) SCP Holdings Pte Ltd (2) Biomax Technologies Pte Ltd … Defendants GROUNDS OF DECISION [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Necessity] [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Failure] [Contract] — [Variation] — [Consideration] [Civil Procedure] — [Pleadings] [Civil Procedure] — [No case to answer] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................4 THE DECISION BELOW ..............................................................................7 THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL.............................................9 ISSUES ............................................................................................................10 OUR DECISION ............................................................................................11 ISSUE 1: THE APPLICABLE TEST UPON A SUBMISSION OF NO CASE TO ANSWER ........................................................................................................11 ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD ADEQUATELY PLEADED THAT THE SA WAS SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION ...............................................16 ISSUE 3: WHETHER CL 9.3 OF THE CLA DISPENSED WITH THE NEED FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General

    OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General

    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. 11 January 2021 May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Justices of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Appellate Division, Judges and Judicial Commissioners, Introduction 1. The past year has been an extremely trying one for the country, and no less for my Chambers. It has been a real test of our fortitude, our commitment to defend and advance Singapore’s interests, and our ability to adapt to unforeseen difficulties brought about by the COVID-19 virus. I am very proud of the good work my Chambers has done over the past year, which I will share with you in the course of my speech. I also acknowledge that the past year has shown that we have some room to grow and improve. I will outline the measures we have undertaken as an institution to address issues which we faced and ensure that we meet the highest standards of excellence, fairness and integrity in the years to come. 2. My speech this morning is in three parts. First, I will talk about the critical legal support which we provided to the Government throughout the COVID-19 crisis. Second, I will discuss some initiatives we have embarked on to future-proof the organisation and to deal with the challenges which we faced this past year, including digitalisation and workforce changes. Finally, I will share my reflections about the role we play in the criminal justice system and what I consider to be our grave and solemn duty as prosecutors.
  • Visit on Dispute Resolution Services in Singapore 1

    Visit on Dispute Resolution Services in Singapore 1

    VISIT ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES IN SINGAPORE The Secretary for Justice, Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC, visited Singapore from The Secretary for April 2 to 3 to promote Hong Kong as a legal services hub and a dispute 1 Justice, Mr Rimsky resolution centre in the Asia Pacific Region, and to enhance ties with Yuen, SC (left), Singapore’s legal sector. meets Singapore’s Senior Minister Mr Yuen met the Senior Minister of State of the Ministry of Law, Ms of State of the Indranee Rajah and the Attorney-General, Mr Steven Chong Horng Ministry of Law, Siong, SC, to discuss matters of mutual interest including the direction 1 Ms Indranee Rajah. of legal policy in both jurisdictions. Mr Yuen (left) He later visited the Maxwell Chambers, which provides alternative dispute 2 meets Singapore’s resolution (ADR) facilities and services in Singapore. Mr Yuen met Mr Attorney-General, Philip Jeyaretnam and Mr Ban Jiun Ean, respectively the Chairman and Mr Steven Chong Chief Executive of the Maxwell Chambers. He also met Mr Minn Naing Horng Siong, SC Oo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore International Arbitration (right). Centre. Mr Yuen exchanged views with them on the latest development of ADR in the international context, and highlighted the Department of Justice’s objective to enhance Hong Kong’s status as a regional hub for legal and ADR services. 2 Mr Yuen also took the opportunity to meet the Dean of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Professor Simon Chesterman; and the Dean of the School of Law, Singapore Management University, Professor Yeo Tiong Min.
  • JUDICIARY TIMES - Issue 01

    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.
  • 170702Mindmap Copy

    170702Mindmap Copy

    Who said what Numerous allegations have been made in the ongoing feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, from misuse of power to a conict Against Lee Hsien Loong of interest in preparing the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s last will. Insight charts the Against Teo Chee Hean • Allegation: PM Lee misused his claims and accusations in the dispute over the fate of 38, Oxley Road. • Allegation: Committee focused power to prevent the house from solely on challenging validity of being demolished demolition clause in Mr Lee’s will PM’s response: Denied the DPM Teo’s response: Not true that “baseless” allegations, will refute committee bent on preventing them in a ministerial statement in demolition of the house Parliament tomorrow • Allegation: Committee did not • Allegation: PM Lee made disclose options in prior exchanges, contradictory statements about only identied members and its their father’s wishes and the house terms of reference when “forced in public and private into the daylight” Ms Indranee Rajah’s DPM Teo’s response: Nothing response: Notes that secret about committee; it is like Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s numerous other committees last will specically Cabinet sets up to consider specic accepts and Against Ho Ching Against K. Shanmugam issues acknowledges that DPM Tharman Allegation: Has a pervasive Allegation: Conict of interest demolition may not take place. • • Shanmugaratnam’s inuence on government, well being on ministerial committee, response: Cabinet has beyond her job scope having advised the late Mr Lee and • Allegation: Did not challenge the numerous committees family about the house last will in court when probate was on whole range of granted • Allegation: Removed the late Mr Mr Shanmugam’s response: issues, to help think Lee’s items from house without PM’s response: Wanted to avoid a Calls the claim ridiculous; says through difcult choices approval; represented the Prime public ght that would tarnish the nothing he said precluded him from Minister’s Ofce despite not family name serving in committee.
  • Steep Rise Ltd V Attorney-General

    Steep Rise Ltd V Attorney-General

    Steep Rise Ltd v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 20 Case Number : Civil Appeal No 30 of 2019 Decision Date : 24 March 2020 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Tay Yong Kwang JA; Steven Chong JA; Woo Bih Li J Counsel Name(s) : Chan Tai-Hui, Jason SC, Tan Kai Liang, Daniel Seow Wei Jin, Victor Leong Hoi Seng and Lim Min Li Amanda (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the appellant; Kristy Tan, Kenneth Wong, Ng Kexian and Tan Ee Kuan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Steep Rise Limited — Attorney-General Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Duty of full and frank disclosure Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Enforcement of foreign confiscation order – Risk of dissipation 24 March 2020 Tay Yong Kwang JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction 1 On 22 August 2017, a Restraint Order was made by the High Court on the application of the Attorney-General (“the AG”) pursuant to s 29 read with para 7(1) of the Third Schedule of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MACMA”), restraining any dealing with the funds in the bank account of Steep Rise Limited (“the appellant”) in the Bank of Singapore (“the BOS Account”). Subsequently, the appellant applied to the High Court to discharge the order of court. The High Court Judge (“the Judge”) dismissed the application and made no order as to costs as the AG did not seek an order for costs. 2 The appellant then appealed against the Judge’s decision.
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General

    OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General

    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. Monday, 7 January 2019 Supreme Court Building, Level Basement 2, Auditorium May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, Introduction: AGC in Support of the Government, for the People 1 2018 was a fast-paced year for the Government and for the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The issues occupying the thoughts of Singapore’s leaders were complex and varied, with several key themes coming to the fore. These themes shaped our work over the past year, as we strove to be a strategic partner in support of the Government’s plans and initiatives, for the benefit of our country and its citizens. I will touch on three of these themes. 2 The first theme was our Smart Nation. This initiative aims to tap on the ongoing digital revolution in order to transform Singapore through technology. The Smart Nation vision is for Singapore to be a world-class leader in the field of digital innovation, resting on the triple pillars of a digital economy, digital government, and digital society. The Smart Nation revolution will play a critical part in ensuring our continued competitiveness on the world stage, powered by digital innovation. 1 3 Data sharing was and continues to be a critical aspect of this initiative. To this end, a new law was passed in 2018 which introduced a data sharing regime among different agencies in the Singapore Government. The Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018, which was drafted by our Chambers in support of this initiative, underpins and formalises a data sharing framework for the Singapore public sector.