a new chapter - state courts · 2015-06-24 · 4 state courts, singapore annual report 2014 state...

A New Chapter...Annual Report 2014

State Courts, Singapore annual report 20142 State Courts, Singapore annual report 2014 1

...for our Judiciary

Shared VisionInspiring public trust and confidence through an effective and accessible

justice system

MissionServing society with quality judgments, timely dispute resolution and excellent

court services

Core ValuesFairness

AccessibilityIndependence, Integrity, Impartiality

Responsiveness

Contents02 Foreword by The Honourable the Chief Justice

04 Message from the Presiding Judge of the State Courts

08 Organisation Chart

09 A New Chapter - Groundbreaking Ceremony for the New State Courts Complex - Establishment of the Family Justice Courts - Court Excellence and Judicial Cooperation Forum 2014

- Launch of the Primary Justice Project - Implementation of the Protection from Harassment Act

17 Serving Society - Significant Initiatives

27 Inspiring Public Trust and Confidence - Significant Cases - Our International Profile - Public Perception Survey 2013

- Stakeholders and Strategic Partners Survey 2014 - Visits by Distinguished Guests in 2014 - Work-Life Excellence Award 2014 - Internship Programmes - Caseload and Statistics

44 Our People - Presiding Judges, Deputy Presiding Judge and Senior District Judges - National Day and State Courts Awards 2014 - Public Service Week Activities - Cohesion Day 2014 - Staff Event Highlights


Foreword by

The Honourable the Chief Justice

We celebrate our nation’s golden jubilee of 50 years of independence in 2015. As we in the State Courts of Singaporereflect on the work we have done over the course of the past year, we do so against the backdrop of this historic milestone for our nation. The State Courts are the heart of justice in Singapore, dealing with a broad spectrum of disputes and offences that have a strong and direct impact on public safety, and the personal lives and commercial dealings of our fellow citizens. This annual report, titled “A New Chapter for our Judiciary”, chronicles a particularly meaningful year for the State Courts where important changes with long-lasting significance had taken place. In March 2014, these Courts became known as “State Courts”. Soon after, in April 2014,the apex post in these Courts, the Chief District Judge, was upgraded and the office of the Presiding Judge of the State Courts was created in its stead. This is a position that will be held by a Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court. Mr See Kee Oon was sworn in as a Judicial Commissioner on 14 April 2014 and became the first Presiding Judge. In May 2014, I officiated at the groundbreaking ceremony for the new State Courts Complex, laying the foundation for world-class infrastructure for the State Courts. October 2014 saw the establishment of the new Family Justice Courts as a separate judicial entity from the State Courts.

During the year, the State Courts also organised several important and well-received conferences, including the Court Excellence and Judicial Cooperation Forum and the Sentencing Conference. For the first time, the State Courts implemented a week-long hearing break which was much appreciated by the Bar and also provided the staff of the State Courts some time for reflection, training and writing. This report

also features some of the significant judgments delivered by the Judges of the State Courtsin 2014.

Despite this hectic sequence of events and major developments, the State Courts have remained firmly focused on effectively administering justice for the people of Singapore. The State Courts continue to maintain a high case disposition rate while receiving very positive feedback in various stakeholder and court user surveys. I am also heartened by the initiatives that have continued apace as the State Courts keep striving to enhance their delivery of justice. These initiatives range from the launch of the Progress Accountability Court and the Primary Justice Project, to the simplification of civil processes for lower value claims and are chronicled in this annual report. The State Courts’ commitment to deliver justice to the community has been demonstrated on many fronts. I am very grateful to the Judges and Court Administrators of the State Courts for their diligence and passion in faithfully doing their utmost to deliver quality justice every day. I also extend my congratulations to the State Courts for being awarded the Work-Life Excellence Award in 2014. This award celebrates achievements in the area of work-life harmony. Lastly, I extend my best wishes to the Presiding Judge of the State Courts and his dedicated team as they continue to serve the people of Singapore.

SUNDARESH MENONChief JusticeRepublic of Singapore


Message from the

Presiding Judge of the State Courts

A New Chapter for our Judiciary

2014 marked the renaming of the Subordinate Courts to the State Courts. The theme for this annual report aptly reflects the many changes that we had experienced in the year and our aspirations for the future as we continue to focus on delivering fair, accessible and customised justice to the people of Singapore.

Highlights of Organisation-Wide Initiatives

Launch of the Primary Justice Project

The Primary Justice Project was launched on 9 May 2014, in partnership with The Law Society of Singapore and the Community Justice Centre. The programme offers paid, basic legal services at a fixed fee and is geared towards helping parties to resolve their disputes earlier, and at much lower costs, through the use of alternative dispute resolution services at the pre-filing stage. To-date, more than 58 lawyers have been appointed to the panel to assist parties in a variety of civil and family claims, with the majority of these cases settled out of court, thereby minimising costs for the parties. There are therefore plans to study the possible extension of the programme to appropriate criminal cases. Groundbreaking Ceremony for the New State Courts Complex

On 28 May 2014, The Honourable the Chief Justice officiated at the groundbreaking ceremony for the new State Courts Complex. The new Complex will expand the physical infrastructure of the State Courts to meet the growing demand for court services.

Establishment of the Family Justice Courts

On 1 October 2014, the Family Justice Courts (FJC) were established as a separate judicial entity. The State Courts’ Family and Juvenile Justice Division and the Family Division of the High Court are now part of the FJC which is headed by a Presiding Judge who is either a Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court. I congratulate Ms Valerie Thean, the former Senior District Judge of the Family and Juvenile Justice Division on her appointment as Judicial Commissioner and the first Presiding Judge of the FJC, and look forward to building on the close ties between the State Courts and FJC.

Implementation of the Protection from Harassment Act

The Protection from Harassment Act, which was passed by Parliament on 13 March 2014, came into force on 15 November 2014.The Act provides civil and criminal recourse for victims of harassment and stalking. Such victims may apply directly to the Court for a Protection Order which will direct the harasser to stop the offending acts. The State Courts had worked with the Ministry of Law and other related agencies to implement the requirements of the Act for these cases to be heard in the State Courts.

Expanding International Relations Efforts

2014 saw the State Courts significantly broadening our international relations and outreach efforts. We organised the inaugural Court Excellence and Judicial Cooperation Forum with the support of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and United States Agency for International Development in March 2014. The Forum was attended by senior judicial officers and court administrators from all 10 ASEAN member states. Building on the momentum created by this Forum, further meetings between the judiciaries of ASEAN are


The first phase of this project was successfully implemented in November 2014, with the new Order 108 of the Rules of Court instituting a simplified civil trial process for Magistrate’s Court (MC) claims. It also removes interlocutory applications for the discovery and inspection of documents and interrogatories, focuses on upfront disclosure and negotiation to facilitate early resolution, and puts in place a robust case management system through the calling of early case management conferences. Work on further simplification of the civil processes will continue in 2015. Community Dispute Resolution Tribunals

The State Courts have been working with our stakeholders through an inter-agency committee comprising the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of National Development, and Ministry of Law to develop a comprehensive dispute resolution system for community matters. It is envisaged that the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunals will be set up under the auspices of the State Courts in 2015 to provide a low cost, fast-track adjudicatory process.

Awards and Accolades Stakeholders and Strategic Partners Survey 2014

The Stakeholders and Strategic Partners Survey was conducted by the State Courts in July 2014. The aim of the survey was to obtain feedback on the level and effectiveness of State Courts’ engagements with our stakeholders and partners. The results of the Survey were generally excellent, with a high level of overall satisfaction among the respondents, to whom we are grateful for their valuable feedback and comments. We have followed up on these and will work towards continuous improvement.

Work-Life Excellence Award 2014

On 7 November 2014, the Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy conferred the Work-Life Excellence Award 2014 on the State Courts. The attainment of this award celebrates the efforts and contributions of organisations that had demonstrated outstanding success in implementing work-life strategies in their workplaces. We are honoured and grateful to be recognised as an organisation that appreciates the value in enhancing work-life harmony.

Conclusion

The core mission of the judiciary to serve our people was reiterated by The Honourable the Chief Justice at the Opening of the Legal Year 2015. Under the leadership and guidance of The Honourable the Chief Justice and with the passion, dedication and support of my colleagues, the State Courts will build on our strengths and reinforce our efforts to serve Singapore well. We will journey on this new chapter with confidence and commitment as Singapore celebrates 50 years of independence in 2015.

SEE KEE OONPresiding Judge of the State Courts

planned for 2015. There were also two customised bi-lateral Judicial Governance Programmes for the Sri Lankan Judges’ Institute from 7 to 11 April 2014, and for 26 judges and court administrators from the judiciary of Thailand from 8 to 17 September 2014. The two programmes which were organised in collaboration with the Civil Service College, Singapore were well-received by the participants.

Enhancements to the Criminal Justice Processes

Progress Accountability Court

The Progress Accountability Court (PAC) was set up in September 2014 to spur, steer and support change in sentenced offenders. The PAC focuses on providing support for an offender to be personally responsible for his or her progress. As at 11 November 2014, the PAC had seen 14 probation cases and 23 fresh cases had been fixed for the coming months.

Witness Support Programme

The Witness Support Programme (WSP) was set up with the help of the Singapore Children’s Society to provide support services to witnesses in criminal proceedings. The services provided include explaining the court processes, legal terminology and role of the witness in proceedings. The WSP began supporting witnesses and potential witnesses in February 2014. Training for the WSP volunteers was also conducted on 23 August 2014 and 25 October 2014.

Sentencing Conference 2014

The State Courts organised the inaugural Sentencing Conference from 9 to 10 October 2014. A total of 338 judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other criminal justice stakeholders from six countries participated in the Conference. The two-day programme examined the latest sentencing trends

and developments in sentencing tools and technology.

Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System

A major step was taken to leverage information technology to support the work of the Criminal Justice Division through the implementation of the Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System (ICMS), an end-to-end system for the efficient management and tracking of criminal cases. The ICMS provides a single and common source of information on criminal cases to enable the electronic exchange of information among criminal justice stakeholders. It was rolled out in phases starting from 2013 and the final phase covering the coronial system and private prosecution matters was scheduled for implementation in January 2015, with an official launch ceremony to be held in February 2015. Enhancements to the Civil Justice Processes

Motor Accident Guide

The Motor Accident Guide (MAG) was launched on 23 April 2014. The guide is intended to provide an initial assessment of liability in motor accident cases and contains guidelines to assist lawyers and the parties in understanding the common scenarios for accidents, as well as the appropriate apportionment of liability that can be expected. The MAG will help the relevant players (insurers, vehicle repair workshops, lawyers, etc.) to negotiate directly with each other more effectively and reach a settlement more quickly and at a lower cost. Simplification of Civil Processes

The State Courts reviewed our processes to simplify the procedures for lower value civil cases. This is to ensure that such cases can be resolved at proportionate costs.


Civil Justice Division

Civil Trial CourtsGroup

General Cluster

Commercial Cluster

Torts Cluster

Primary Dispute Resolution

Centre

Small ClaimsTribunals

Civil Registry

Bailiffs

Organisation Chart

Criminal JusticeDivision

Centralised Pre-Trial Conference

Court

Commercial Crimes Group

Community CourtGroup

Crimes againstProperty Group

Crimes against Persons Group

Specialised Courtsand Mentions Courts

Group

Crime Registry

Corporate & Court Services

Division

Corporate Services

Communications Department

Finance Department

Human Resource Department

Infrastructure Development Department

Court Services

Language Services Department

Records Management

Digital Recording & Transcription

Strategic Planning & Technology

Division

Planning Department

Knowledge Management

& Library Department

Organisational Excellence & Performance Management Department

Information Technology Department

Presiding Judge

Deputy Presiding Judge

Internal Audit Unit

A New Chapter


Groundbreaking Ceremony for the New State Courts Complex

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh MenonOpening Address for the Groundbreaking Ceremony for

the New State Courts Complex28 May 2014

The existing courthouse at 1 Havelock Square is fondly known by staff of the State Courts as the “Octagon”, due to its unique geometric shape. Construction for the Octagon began in 1963, with the aim to centralise the different courthouses that were operating at various locations at that time. When it was completed in 1975, the Octagon became one of the most iconic buildings in Chinatown.

Nearly four decades later, work has begun for a new complex to enhance the infrastructure of the State Courts, to fulfil their vision of inspiring public trust and

confidence through an effective and accessible justice system.

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon officiated at the groundbreaking ceremony for the new State Courts Complex on 28 May 2014. A multi-media presentation showcased the facilities and provided guests with a virtual tour of the new Complex.

…the new tower complex consists of two distinct blocks, the courtroom block and the administrative block, both connected by interlocking bridges. The courtroom

block is an open frame supporting a series of shared terraces on which the criminal and civil courtrooms

are placed: it has no external enclosed facade. This is a powerful metaphor for the

openness, transparency and impartiality of the judicial process.



Families and youth are the foundation and future of our society. Family dysfunction,if left unchecked, can weaken the social fabric. The Courts therefore play a critical role in the holistic resolution of family disputes and restoring the balance so that dysfunction can be displaced by a focus on constructive problem-solving.

The Nature of Family Conflicts

Family cases are different from civil and criminal cases. The legal remedy is only part of the solution. Facts leading to the disputes are complex and emotions often run high. In the family context, relationships continue even after the proceedings have concluded. Parents remain parents, children remain sons and daughters and siblings to each other. When relationship issues are not addressed or resolved, the problems can recur. Review of the Family Justice System

Recognising this, in January 2013, The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon called for reforms to the family justice system. The Committee for Family Justice was then set up to review and make

recommendations on the future of Singapore’s family justice system. The Committee recommended a national end-to-end integrated support system to meetthe needs of youth and families in distress. The recommendations were accepted by the Government in July 2014 and the Family Justice Act was passed by Parliament on 4 August 2014.


A key recommendation of the Committee was the establishment of the Family Justice Courts (FJC). In operation from 1 October 2014, the FJC consists of the: • FamilyDivisionoftheHighCourt• FamilyCourts• YouthCourts

In addition, there is a Central Registry to receive, assign and manage all cases that come before the FJC.

The FJC is led by the Presiding Judge, who is a Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court, while the Central Registry is under the supervision of the Registrar of the FJC.

The Juvenile Court is renamed as the Youth Courts which hear cases related to children and young persons.

The Family Courts hear all family proceedings except cases under the Children and Young Persons Act, which are heard by the Youth Courts.

(Family Division)The Family Division of the High Court p r i m a r i l y h e a r s appeals against thedecisions of the Family Courts and the Youth Courts.

Judicial Commissioner Valerie Thean was appointed by the President of Singapore as the Presiding Judge of the FJC, and Senior District Judge Chia Wee Kiat was appointed as Registrar.

By bringing together all family-related matters, including (i) divorce-related proceedings, (ii) guardianship proceedings, (iii) adoption proceedings, (iv) protection from family violence, (v) provision of maintenance matters, (vi) mental capacity cases, (vii) probate cases, and (viii) matters relating to children and young persons, under a specialised body of courts, the Courts would be able to frame disputes from the perspective of families and the individuals within.

New Processes in the FJC

In line with the recommendations of the Committee, the FJC introduced the following from 1 October 2014:

• Judge-led approach where judges lead and control the pace and direction of cases• Differentiated case management system to handle urgent or complex cases and to resolve such cases expeditiously • Streamlined court forms for easier understanding by litigants-in-person• Affidavit templates so that only relevant information is placed before the Court• Appointment of a Court Friend to assist the litigant-in-person, where appropriate• Power of the Court to direct parties to attend counselling and/or mediation to resolve their disputes for all cases that are brought before the Court

A Child-Centred Approach

In any family proceedings involving children, the child’s welfare is always the Court’s paramount consideration. Therefore, new measures have been introduced to better ensure that the child’s interests are protected:

• CounsellingandMediationforall cases involving children With effect from 1 October 2014, mandatory counselling and mediation were extended to include divorce cases with children under the age of 21. All other cases involving children may likewise undergo a similar programme of counselling and mediation.

• AppointmentofChildRepresentatives The Court can appoint a Child Representative who will assist the Court in ascertaining the best interests of the child. Using the “child’s best interests” principle, the Child Representative will assist the Court by:

gathering information conducting interviews with the child and providing observations making submissions to the Court

With the enactment of the Family Justice Act, the FJC’s coherent framework allows the FJC to meet the unique needs of troubled families and youth. In time, and with the joint effort of all stakeholders, these changes will deeply benefit the family justice system.


The State Courts organised the inaugural Court Excellence and Judicial Cooperation Forum (CEJCF) from 5 to 7 March 2014. The CEJCF was supported by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The participants comprised senior judicial officers and court administrators from the ASEAN member states and the ASEAN Secretariat.

Aimed at fostering closer judicial cooperation amongst the ASEAN member states and to provide a platform for the participants

to share their experiences in judicial administration, the CEJCF served as a first step in achieving a shared vision of court excellence and judicial cooperation within the ASEAN region. It is envisioned that with greater cooperation, the ASEAN member states can promote knowledge exchange and the sharing of best practices in the area of court administration and access to justice, enhance cooperation among the judiciaries in the ASEAN region, and adapt the International Framework for Court Excellence to suit the ASEAN context.

Court Excellence and Judicial Cooperation Forum 2014

Launch of the Primary Justice Project

At the State Courts Workplan 2013, The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon announced that the State Courts would introduce the Primary Justice Project (PJP), a scheme in which litigants pay a fixed fee for basic legal services geared towards settlement, as an intermediate step between self-help and the commencement of legal proceedings in Court.

On 9 May 2014, the PJP was officially launched by Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts. Akin to a primary healthcare provider that assists a patient before deciding whether to refer him to a hospital or specialist, the PJP attempts to resolve a dispute without bringing the case to the Courts. It aims to encourage claimants to resolve a greater number of disputes expediently and amicably out of Court. In this way, the Courts will no longer be perceived as a place where resolution of disputes begins, but as a forum to turn to after other ways of resolving disputes have been exhausted.

The PJP scheme is jointly developed by the State Courts, The Law Society of Singapore and the Community Justice Centre (CJC), in consultation with members of the Bar. These organisations have also developed the materials and tools for the PJP lawyers’ use. Lawyers involved in the scheme will provide basic legal services for their clients at a fixed fee for up to six hours, with the specific aim of attempting to achieve an amicable resolution through mediation or negotiation. These lawyers have at least three years of post-qualification legal experience, and have been trained by the SingaporeMediation Centre in mediation or mediation advocacy skills.

The PJP scheme is administered by the CJC, an independent charity offering services to court users who have no legal representation. The CJC receives applications from interested parties, matches them to an available PJP lawyer for the matter, and monitors the progress of each case. Where parties need help to complete forms, the CJC may also provide volunteers to assist them.

Mr Sorawit LimparangsriPresiding Judge

Research Justice DivisionCourt of Appeal, Thailand

“Every court has advantages and ideas… as this is the first Forum, it lays the foundation for further cooperation.”


Serving Society

Implementation of the Protection from Harassment ActThe Protection from Harassment Act 2014 came into effect on 15 November 2014. The Act offers protection to victims of harassment and stalking by providing criminal sanctions and civil remedies for the victims.

The different offences relate to behaviour which can be in the form of words, communication or behaviour in both theonline and physical world that:

• intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress • causeharassment,alarmordistress• cause fear or provocation of violence• threaten, abuse or insult a public servant or public service worker • constitute stalking (e.g. following the victim, making any communication to the victim, impersonating as the victim, loitering in any place near the victim, sending material to the victim, and keeping the victim under surveillance)

Civil Remedies

Victims can apply for a Protection Order (PO) and, in cases where urgent intervention is required, an Expedited Protection Order (EPO). POs and EPOs may order the harassers to stop doing the offending acts and remove the offending statements or publications. A breach of a PO or an EPO is a criminal offence and is punishable with an imprisonment term of up to six months, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

Where false statements of a person are published, a victim can apply for a Non-Publication Order that requires a person not to publish or to stop publishing the

offending statements, unless a notification on the falsehood of the offending statements and the true facts is published.

The Act also creates a statutory right to bring an action for damages against a person who has committed any of the offences stated in the Act, with the exception of cases where the victim is a public servant or a public service worker. Criminal Sanctions A victim of harassment or stalking may seek criminal prosecution. Offences under the Act are punishable with an imprisonment term of up to 12 months, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Repeat offenders face enhanced punishment of an imprisonment term of up to two years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

Specialised Counters for Applications

Two counters in the Crime Registry are dedicated to handling applications made under the Act. To facilitate applications, two computers with printing facilities and the relevant template forms have been set up for use in the Crime Registry.


international developments in sentencing law and practice, and the use of technology in sentencing.

Not only were the participants enriched through hearing from the local and international legal luminaries, they also enjoyed their time interacting with fellow professionals and stakeholders at the Conference. Two speakers shared their thoughts on the Conference:

“I’m struck by the commonality of the issues which we confront in our respective jurisdictions and how much we could learn from one another.”

Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin Supreme Court of Western Australia

“This is the first sentencing conference of its kind in Singapore. It’s a wonderful innovation to bring people from different parts of the legal system, as well as people from the region, to discuss similar problems. It’s important for us to obtain a wider perspective of what we do and tend to take for granted, because everyone tends to have a solipsistic view of their system. So it’s important that we learn from each other.”

Professor Arie Freiberg Chairman, Sentencing Advisory Council

Victoria, Australia


Launch of the Motor Accident Guide Road traffic accidents are a daily occurrence in our highly urbanised environment. With the increase in vehicle population in recent years, claims arising from such accidents have formed a significant portion of claims filed in the State Courts. To assist the general public and the key players in the motor industry to amicably and expeditiously resolve their traffic accident claims, the State Courts published the user-friendly Motor Accident Guide (MAG) in 2014.

Contributed by Judges from the Civil Justice Division, the MAG provides the general public and others involved in motor accident claims, e.g. insurers, vehicle repair workshops and lawyers, with useful information so that they will be better equipped to resolve their accident claim cases amicably and avoid incurring litigation expenses. The MAG contains a range of liability indications for a series of different motor accident scenarios, including those involving motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and passengers. Each motor accident scenario is complemented by simple text, pictures and diagrams. The ranges with respectto liability are based on actual awards given in locally decided cases, where applicable. Quick tips on what to do when one is involved in an accident are available in the MAG. The possible defences that one may raise when defending a claim are also referred to in the MAG.

Significant Initiatives

Progress Accountability Court

The establishment of the Progress Accountability Court (PAC) was announced on 7 March 2014 by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in his Keynote Address at the State Courts Workplan 2014.

The role of the PAC is to oversee the progress of offenders who have been sentenced to probation and community-based sentences through regular and ad-hoc progress reviews. The offender, his close family members, as well as the case officer who prepares the progress report, will attend the review. This allows the PAC to monitor the offender’s progress and provide further post-sentencing support to the offender. The review is forward-looking — its objective is for the offender to be personally accountable for his progress and to reinforce the need for positive and lasting changes to be made.

The PAC heard its first case in September 2014. A possible extension of the PAC to include offenders who have been sentenced to reformative training is currently being considered.

Witness Support Programme

Witnesses, in particular, victims of an alleged offence, should receive sufficient support so that they can better deal with the stress of having to give evidence in criminal proceedings. The Witness Support Programme (WSP) aims to familiarise witnesses in criminal proceedings with the court environment and court processes. Referrals to the WSP may be made through the Court by the case’s

investigation officer, Attorney-General’s Chambers, or defence counsel.

As part of the WSP, witnesses will be briefed on their role and the court procedures. Legal terms that are commonly used in the course of the proceedings will also be explained to them. In addition, information on counselling and social services will be made available to the witnesses. Where required, victims of an alleged offence will be referred to community service agencies that are equipped to assist them.

Sentencing Conference 2014: Trends, Tools & Technology

Jointly organised by the State Courts and Singapore Academy of Law, the Sentencing Conference 2014 was held at the Auditorium of the Supreme Court on 9 and 10 October 2014.

A total of 338 judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other criminal justice stakeholders from Singapore and other countries attended the Conference. Local speakers included Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Judges of the Supreme Court, representatives from the State Courts, Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore Prison Service, and lawyers. Foreign speakers included the keynote speaker Sir Anthony Hooper, retired Judge of Appeal, England and Wales, and Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, as well as eminent academics.

Some of the topics covered during the Conference were plea bargaining,restoration and rehabil itation after a sentence is passed, recent local and

Criminal Justice Division


Simplified Process for Magistrate’s Court Cases Prior to 1 November 2014, the Rules of Court prescribed a single regime for all cases that come into the Courts, with all the processes geared towards bringing each civil case to trial, regardless of the monetary value of the claim. This meant that a $5,000 claim had to go through the same processes as a claim for $1 million.

However, many Magistrate’s Court (MC) cases did not go to trial even after preparations for trial were completed, because parties may have decided to settle their case before the trial. This resulted in a significant wastage of time and costs that is often disproportionate to the monetary value of the claim. Thus, the need to review the management of MC cases arose, with a focus on the processes to facilitate an early resolution of an MC case.

A working group was set up in 2013 to enhance the prospects for early resolution as well as develop simpler and faster processes for civil cases which have to go for trial. The working group consulted various committees of The Law Society of Singapore. Based on the feedback received, a new and simplified process was formulated for MC cases. This came into effect on 1 November 2014 and is found in the new Order 108 of the Rules of Court.

The new process features an upfront disclosure of documents together with early case management conferences (CMC). With the upfront disclosure of documents, the parties can have the fullest possible particulars of each other’s positions in order to begin negotiations to resolve the case. At the CMC, the Court will assist in sorting out the issues and managing any interlocutory matters between the parties. With the lawyers’

collaboration, the CMC can help facilitate an expeditious resolution for the majority of cases with small value claims. This can reduce the time and costs involved in litigating such cases, compared to if the case went for trial. Directions will be given for a simplified trial for cases that are not settled. For personal injury and property damage cases, the existingpractice directions and pre-action protocol continue to apply.

Family Justice Courts

Process Reforms The reforms to court processes aim to reduce the acrimony between the disputing parties, facilitate the early and effectiveresolution of family-related disputes, and ensure that sensitive issues involving a child, such as custody and access, are resolved with minimum negative impact on the child.

Judge-led approach

Judges are empowered to proactively direct the court hearing process and to shift the focus of a case to the substantive issues, for example, by identifying the relevant issues, calling for certain evidence to be

produced, and limiting the number of affidavits to be filed to prevent protracted disputes.

Differentiated case management

Cases entering the judicial system are differentiated into var ious t racks depending on the types of issues involved, their complexity,and the dynamics of the relationship between the parties. This allows the Court

to use the most appropriate case management process and resources to effectively resolve

each case. For example, cases involving contested issues of child custody and access can be identified early in the court proceedings and addressed accordingly.

Greater use of counselling and mediation

Counselling and mediation at the early stagesof court proceedings reduce acrimony and facilitate an early resolution of the disputes. Before 1 October 2014, counselling and mediation were mandatory for divorcing couples with at least one child below 4 years old. In all other cases, the parties may opt to go for counselling and/or mediation. With the establishment of the Family Justice Courts (FJC) on 1 October 2014, the Court is now empowered to direct parties to attend counselling and mediation for any case that comes before the FJC.

Simpler court forms and use of templates

Court forms will be simplified and templates for affidavits will be available to provide guidelines for the type of information that is deemed relevant for court proceedings. These would help litigants-in-person navigate the court system more easily.

Assistance to unrepresented parties

Unrepresented parties often need assistance due to their unfamiliarity with the court system, coupled with the stress brought about by their cases. In an appropriatecase, the Court may appoint a Court Friend, a volunteer who is to assist the party by:

• providing general information on court processes • giving emotional and practical support • attending court hearings with the party and taking notes

The Court Friend, however, does not provide legal advice or representation.

The Court Friend Scheme is administered by the Community Justice Centre and National University of Singapore Pro Bono Office.

Second Family Justice Practice Forum The second Family Justice Practice Forum was held after the opening of the new Family Justice Courts on 1 October 2014. Themed “New Approaches to Family Justice”, it heralded the changes ahead for players in the family justice system. The Forum brought together stakeholdersand agencies under the Ministry of Social and Family Development, other associate charitable or voluntary organisations working with families and children, as well as family law practitioners and child and family mental health professionals, to continue an ongoing dialogue to improve the family justice system for thebenefit of families in distress.


Internal Audit Unit

Raising Awareness in CorporateGovernance Corporate governance refers to the system and processes that an organisation has in place to protect and enhance the interests of its stakeholders. Internal audit is an integral part of corporate governance.

The Internal Audit Unit (IAU) has been raising the awareness of corporate governance among State Courts staff through various platforms such as talks and knowledge sharing sessions. This is to foster a culture of good governance within the organisation, paving the way for a stronger system of accountability.

Leveraging Technology One challenge that the IAU faced was to build the essential infrastructure to support its functions. Therefore, the IAU leverages technology wherever possible. This has facilitated its audit planning and improved its audit effectiveness and efficiency. In turn, its data analysis capability and the quality of its internal audit processes have strengthened.

Apart from maximising the use of technology for the IAU’s operational needs, technology has been used to enhance knowledge management within the IAU. This has allowed the IAU to share information with its stakeholders quickly and effectively.

Corporate and CourtServices Division

Accreditation by the Singapore Accountancy Commission In 2014, the State Courts were accredited by the Singapore Accountancy Commission (SAC) as one of the training organisations under the Singapore Qualification Programme (Singapore QP). As an Accredited Training Organisation,the State Courts are certified as an employer that possesses the appropriate standards of staff training, accountancyresources and development for Singapore QP candidates who are pursuing the “Chartered Accountant of Singapore” qualification to fulfil their practical experience. The Chartered Accountant of Singapore is a post-university professional accountancy qualification.

Fine Collection Services Under the law, court users who have been fined may be allowed to pay their courtfines in instalments. Under an initiative which provides court users with a wider range of and more convenient payment options, court users may now pay their fine instalments without making a trip to the State Courts. They can use self-service payment platforms such as the AXS stations, mobile applications and the online AXS e-Stations to pay their fine instalments.

Wheelchair Lift at Court 26 Access to justice took on a literal sense when a wheelchair lift was installed at the flight of steps leading to Court 26, the only courtroom that is located on the basement level of the State Courts building.

The wheelchair lift complies with stringent safety standards by stopping automatically when it meets an obstruction. It will not operate until all its inbuilt safety features are in place. Besides these, security officers are also present to help users to operate the wheelchair lift.

Eco-Office Initiatives The State Courts are committed to preserving the environment and conserving the earth’s limited natural resources. In 2014, several eco-office features were introduced in the State Courts building. These included energy-efficient air-conditioners, and water-efficient fixtures and motion sensor lighting in the recently upgraded restrooms.

Master Learning Plan for All The Master Learning Plan (MLP) aims to build the capability and enhance the work performance of each staff member. It establishes a framework to ensure that the training resources of the State Courts are

aligned with the organisation’s priorities and objectives. Programmes for key learning areas such as amicable dispute resolution, effective leadership and service excellence were planned to ensure that staff receive the relevant training for their areas of work, as well as to develop their capabilities to support the work of the State Courts. Sponsorship programmes were also launched to encourage staff to pursue higher education.

Career Development Roadmaps To help staff develop long-term meaningful careers in the State Courts, career development roadmaps were developed to provide them with greater clarity on the opportunities for personal growth and development, and their career progression paths in the organisation. With well-designed career development roadmaps, staff’s potential and commitment would be harnessed. This would, in turn, enable the organisation to become more effective and efficient in serving court users and the society.

A Day in Court: Criminal Justice for Student Leaders – Outreach to Secondary School Students During the State Courts Workplan in March 2014, The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon announced that as part of the efforts to enhance the community’s understanding of the work of the State Courts, outreach efforts would be enhanced.

On 19 November 2014, the State Courts, with the support of the Family Justice Courts, organised the inaugural seminar for Secondary 3 student leaders. Entitled “A Day in Court: Criminal Justice for Student Leaders”, the one-day seminar gave the student leaders an overview of the Singapore criminal justice system, in particular, the restorative


justice model adopted by the Youth Courts and Community Court which hear cases involving youth. A total of 86 students from 42 schools attended the seminar.

Student leaders are well-placed to influence their peers positively. By equipping them with knowledge of the criminal justice system and court proceedings, they would be able to share with their peers what they had learnt about the Courts, and crimes generally committed by youth offenders and the consequences to them, their families and the society at large. The seminar also gave them a better understanding of the work of the Courts and officers of the Courts, e.g. prosecutors and lawyers.

The main highlights of the seminar were the discussion and role-play sessions in a Community Court victim-offender conference and a moot court session.Through a case study of a youth involved in an unlawful assembly case, the participants took on the roles of the main parties involved in this case. In their capacities as the “offender”, “offender’s parent”, “victim”, “probation officer” and “defence counsel”, the participants discussed and assessed the possible causes of the offending behaviour during the victim-offender conference. During the moot court session, the participants presented their views in their respective capacities for a Judge’s sentencing considerations.

Through the seminar, the participants appreciated that the Courts have to consider many factors and various perspectives in every case that they deal with. In the process, the participants

were also encouraged to consider issues holistically to help them address any problem or situation that they may encounter in life.

Wall Mural to Chronicle the Development of the State Courts A wall mural on Level 1 of the State Courts building was installed to chronicle the development of the State Courts from 1965 (i.e. post-independence) to-date.

This is a timely reflection given that the Octagon, i.e. State Courts building, will turn 40 in 2015. It also serves as a reminder of the State Courts’ commitment to inspire public trust and confidence through an effective and accessible justice system throughout the years.

Use of Mobile Technology Devices The State Courts leverage technology to enhance the justice process and to ensure the optimal use of resources. To this end, the court interpreters use handheld (PC) tablets to interpret for accused persons who are hospitalised and are unable to attend Court due to their incapacity.

Besides eliminating the need for the interpreters to be physically present when interpreting for accused persons who are in hospital, such mobile technology devices also replace the voluminous paper documents that the interpreters and prosecuting agencies previously had to manage.

Strategic Planning and Technology Division

Strategic Planning and Innovation Framework In 2014, a review of the State Courts’ overall strategies and structures was conducted. A strategic planning and innovation framework was put in placeto boost the organisation’s capacity to develop new initiatives that would benefit court users. This included enhancing the mid-term strategic planning capabilities and providing the organisation with opportunities for regular reflections and reviews of its progress. There was also a deliberate attempt to gradually increase the amount of time committed to planning and development activities in the State Courts. This included developing a core team of officers in each justice division who would focus on planning-related activities and encouraging a culture of innovation by working together on innovation projects.

Revised Strategic Map and Thrusts In line with the launch of the State Courts and the revised Justice Statement, the organisation’s strategy map and strategic thrusts were reviewed, refined and simplified. The refreshed strategy map saw an articulation of the five inter-connected strategies, i.e. Actively Collaborating with Stakeholders, Optimising Resources, Leveraging IT, Maximising People’s Potential and Enhancing Learning and Innovation, which the State Courts use to achieve their vision and mission.

e-Library Services The e-Library (e-Libs) services were launchedin April 2014. This was a collaboration of the Library, Infrastructure Development Department and Information TechnologyDepartment. The service kiosks are located in the State Courts Library and the Atrium.

The kiosks publicise the legal information services that are available in the Library. Court users who are seeking assistance and guidance on legal information and resources can also use the kiosks to find out where they may obtain them from.

Justice Scorecard In 2014, the development and deployment of the electronic Justice Scorecard 3 (JS3) system was completed. This is the third generation of a system developed by the State Courts for performance measurement and management purposes. It is an interactive platform that readily and easily allows generating, sharing and cascading of information on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and other statistics readily and easily.

With key features like “Dashboard” and “Strategy Map”, the senior management is able to gain a holistic view of the organisation’s performance and alignment towards its strategic goals. Middle managers are able to review and analyse the performance of the different departments through the divisional “Scorecard”, which provides users with historic trends and up-to-date information on every KPI andother management indicators. As a business intelligence tool, the performance measurement process is automated, to a large extent, via system-to-system integration with the State Courts’ various case management systems, enhancing itsdata mining and analysing capability.


Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System Implemented in phases since July 2013, the Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System transforms the court processes into an integrated e-filing, e-workflow and e-Court hearing system. This enables the high volume of criminal cases brought before the State Courts to be handled more efficiently.

The implementation of the fully automated electronic workflow has successfully transformed the current paper-driven information system into a seamless information exchange hub that connects all stakeholders in an integrated environment. It has enabled accurate, complete and timely sharing and exchange of relevant information on case status, outcomes and court orders, resulting in a one-stop information environment which facilitates greater accessibility, efficiency, transparency and effectiveness for criminal justice stakeholders.

Inaugural Organisational Excellence Week The inaugural Organisational Excellence (OE) Week was organised in March 2014 to refresh and reinforce a deeper understanding and interest in OE-related initiatives. Staff of all levels were encouraged to explore OE initiatives and approaches. The new OE framework and strategies were also introduced during the OE week. Guest speakers from public and private organisations were invited to share their experiences, and in-house workshops were organised for staff to have hands-on experience with useful OE tools. Exhibition booths were also set up, enabling staff to learn about OE in a fun way.

and Confidence

Inspiring Public Trust


Significant CasesCriminal Justice Division

Cases arising from the Little India Riot

On 8 December 2013, the worst public order disturbance in Singapore in more than four decades took place in Little India, Singapore’s main Indian enclave. Sparked off by a fatal traffic accident, the riot left 49 Home Team Officers (including law enforcement and civil defence personnel), injured, five emergency vehicles set on fire, and 18 other emergency vehicles and seven private vehicles damaged.

In the aftermath of the riot, 25 men were charged with various offences, depending on the respective acts committed during the riot. The majority of the cases had been dealt with, while some are pending before the Courts. The concluded cases are:

• Offenders who knowingly joined in the riot despite a command from the police to disperse pleaded guilty to a charge under section 151 of the Penal Code and received sentences ranging from 15 to 18 weeks’ impr isonment (PP v Chinnappa Vijayaragunatha Poopathi, PP v Singaravelu Vignesh, PP v Selvaraj Karikalan, PP v Thangaiya Selvakumar, PP v Thiagarajan Sribalamurugan and PP v Krishnan Saravanan).

• Offenders who joined in the riot pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful assembly under section 143 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment (PP v Karuppaiah Chandrasekar and PP v Palanivel Dhasmohan).

• Offenders who assaulted or obstructed Home Team Officers who were trying to quell the riot pleaded guilty to a charge under section 152 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment terms ranging from 18 weeks to 12 months (PP v Selvanathan Murugesan, PP v Ravi Arun Vengatesh and PP v Bose Prabakar). One offender who claimed trial to a charge of obstruction was convicted and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment (PP v Mahalingam Thavamani).

• Offenders whose participation in the riot included hurling projectiles, damaging, setting fire to and overturning the emergency vehicles pleaded guilty to charges of rioting and mischief by fire under section 147 and section 435 of the Penal Code. They received sentences ranging from 14 to 33 months’ imprisonment. For particularly egregious cases, the offenders were also sentenced to three strokes of the cane (PP v Ramalingam Sakthivel, PP v Arumugam Karthik, PP v Moorthy Kabildev, PP v Periyaiah Ganesan, PP v Sarangan Kumaran, PP v Mongan Anbalagan, PP v Chinnappa Prabakaran, PP v Chinnappa Govindarasu, PP v Chinnathambi Madesan and PP v Samiyappan Sellathurai).

PP v Choo Wee Kiang & Koh Li Ping In 2005, Choo Wee Kiang was the President of the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA). At that time, Koh Li Ping was employed by the STTA as a manager. Choo was charged with criminal breach of trust as an agent while Koh was charged with abetting him in the commission of the said offence. The charges centred on the

payment of $8,400 to one Luo Jie, a Chinese national, who had been employed by the STTA as a sparring partner for its trainees.

While he was under the STTA’s employment, Luo moonlighted as a coach in Fuhua Secondary School (FSS). When FSS realised that Luo’s work permit did not permit him to work for anyone except the STTA, it claimed that Luo was a volunteer coach at FSS and refused to pay Luo the $8,400 that was due to him.

The Prosecution’s case was that the $8,400 was meant to be part of a larger payment to the STTA for services rendered by the STTA under a contract with FSS. The Defence contended that this contract was FSS’s way of paying Luo for his private coaching fees without exposing FSS to any criminal liability for engaging Luo as a coach without a work permit. As a result, FSS agreed to pay an inflated fee under the contract so as to include the $8,400 due to Luo. After a trial lasting 12 days, both Choo and Koh were acquitted of the charges. The Prosecution appealed and the trial Judge’s decision was affirmed by the High Court.

PP v Ding Si Yang This case received extensive media coverage as it delved into the murky world of match-fixing. Ding Si Yang claimed trial to three charges of corruption under section 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Prosecution alleged that he had given gratification in the form of free sexual services provided by social escorts to three Lebanese match officials, so that the officials would fix upcoming football matches in the Asian Football Confederation Champions League. At trial, Ding elected to remain silent. Despite this, the Court did not draw an adverse inference against him as the Court found that

the Prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt. Ding was found guilty and sentenced to a total of 36 months’ imprisonment.

Ding appealed against his conviction and sentence, while the Prosecution cross-appealed against the sentence imposed. The appeal hearing in the High Court was expedited as Ding was denied bail pending the appeal. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the trial Judge’s decision to convict Ding and enhanced his sentence to five years’ imprisonment.

PP v Lim Cheng Hoe This case was widely referred to in the media as the “pineapple tarts” case. Lim Cheng Hoe, former Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), faced 60 charges of cheating the MFA by making false claims for pineapple tarts and wines that were purportedly purchased for official purposes. Over a period of four years, the false claims amounted to a sum of $88,997. Lim pleaded guilty to 10 charges and consented to the remaining 50 charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. Although he had made full restitution, the Court noted that the fraud perpetuated by him was not easily detectable and that his premeditation in committing the offences was clear. He was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.



Lee Kien Meng v Cintamani Frank

Does the person who sets up a Facebook page own it? The question arose in this case which saw the confluence of the world of high fashion and the world of social media. The Plaintiff was a digital social media expert who owned a company providing digital media services, amongst others. The Defendant was the chairman and founder of the “Men’s Fashion Week” (MFW) and the “Women’s Fashion Week” (WFW) in Singapore.

The Defendant engaged the Plaintiff in 2010 to promote MFW 2011 and WFW 2011 through social media platforms. The Plaintiff thus set up Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, and acquiredweb domain names for MFW 2011 and WFW 2011. The Plaintiff became the first administrator of the MFW and WFW Facebook pages. At that time, Facebook Inc.’s applicable administrator policies were that any administrator of a Facebook page had the rights to remove or add another administrator.

In early November 2010, the Plaintiff assigned the administrative rights to the MFW and WFW Facebook pages to one of his staff members and the Defendant. The Defendant, in turn, appointed a few of his own staff members as the administrators of those Facebook pages. In January 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant fell out over a contractual issue. Soon after, in March 2012, there was a series of hacking incidents on the MFW and WFW Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. The Defendant believed that the Plaintiff was behind these incidents and removed all the administrators of the Facebook pages, including the Plaintiff. The Facebook pages

were also unpublished, i.e. they could be viewed by their administrators only.

The Plaintiff commenced this action and claimed against the Defendant for a declaration that: a) the Plaintiff was the owner/sole administrator of the MFW and WFW Facebook pages; and b) the Defendant return the administration rights of the Facebook pages to the Plaintiff and relinquish all rights and control of these pages to the Plaintiff.

The Court found that the rules and policies in respect of the operation of Facebook pages are determined only by Facebook Inc. Facebook users are subject to these rules and policies, which can be changed anytime by Facebook Inc. The Court determined that Facebook Inc. owns the Facebook pages, whereas Facebook users own the content and information they post. Setting up Facebook pages therefore did not confer ownership of the pageson the Plaintiff.

The Court held that the right which the Plaintiff had in mind over the Facebook pages is, in fact, a collection of administrative rights and found that these administrative rights are privileges accorded by Facebook Inc. to its users. Such rights can be withdrawn anytime by Facebook Inc. and are therefore not rights in the strict sense of the word. While the Plaintiff had administrative privileges given by Facebook Inc., these privileges did not amount to a proprietary right in law. The Court held that they are not rights that the Defendant could transfer or assign to the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to prove his claim and dismissed the claim.

Tan Tze Sung v Chng Nai Wee, AT2 Company Pte Ltd, Lonpac Insurance Berhad The Plaintiff was a quantity surveyor. His employer was engaged by the first Defendant to provide his expert services for the construction of the first Defendant’shouse. On 11 August 2007, the Plaintiffhad to attend a meeting at the house which was undergoing construction. As he opened the gate of the house, the gate fell on him and caused him serious injuries.

The second Defendant was the main contractor for the construction of the house and Lonpac Insurance Berhad (“Third Party”) was an insurer for the construction project and brought in by the first Defendant. The Third Party had issued two insurance policies pertaining to the construction. Apart from a workmen’s compensation policy, there was a “contractors’ all risk” policy. The Third Party invoked an exclusion clause in this policy and repudiated liability for the Plaintiff’s claim for his injuries.

The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the first Defendant. It held that the first Defendant was not personally liable as he was not an occupier of the house and he was not vicariously liable for the negligence of the second Defendant as the latter was an independent contractor. Interlocutory judgment wasentered against the second Defendant which was found to be negligent. Even though the Third Party action stood technically dismissed owing to the fact that the claim against the first Defendant had been dismissed, both Defendants requested the Court to make a finding as to whether the Third Party’s purported repudiation of the policy was wrongful. This was for the Court to decide who should bear the relevant portions of the costs.

The Court held that the Third Party’s repudiation of the contractors’ all risks policy was wrongful. In consequence, the Court made cost orders adverse to the Third Party. The Third Party appealed against all of the Court’s findings. However, after the Court’s grounds of decision were issued, the Third Party did not proceed with its appeal.

An outline of the reasons for the Court’s decision that the Third Party’s repudiation of the policy was wrongful is as follows:

• The named insured persons were the first Defendant as the “principal”, the second Defendant as the “contractor” and the latter’s sub-contractors. The relevant policy cover was against personal injury to “third parties” arising out of the construction works. However, Special Exclusion 4(a) excluded cover “in respect of employees or workmen of the Contractor(s) or the Principal(s) or any other firm concerned with the project…” The Court found that, in the intrinsic context of the policy, the phrase “any other firm concerned with the project” was meant to refer to the second Defendant’s sub-contractors. The phrase was not apt to include the first Defendant’s consultants or their employees. • Reinforcing the Court’s interpretation of the special exclusion, the Court drew on two extrinsic factors. One, that the letter of award, which included an express requirement for insurance cover for consultants and their representatives, was made known to the insurer and that there was no indication from the insurer that it was not going to meet this requirement. Two, the workmen’s compensation policy would have covered employees of the second Defendant and its sub-contractors but not the Plaintiff. An absence of insurance cover for the Plaintiff would have been a glaring omission.


(1) Gunasekar S/O Vaithanadasam v Yong Ping Trading as Glass House Enterprise & Anor (2) Ravikumar S/O Patmanathan v Yong Ping Trading as Glass House Enterprise & Anor The claims by the Plaintiffs (Driver and Passenger) in these two suits were for damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of the Defendant Lorry Driver colliding into the rear of their car. Both Plaintiffs were represented by the same solicitor.

The trial for the Plaintiff Driver’s case was concluded with the Court’s decision pending the parties’ written submissions and the completion of the hearing of the Plaintiff Passenger’s claim. At the hearing of the Plaintiff Passenger’s claim, the Plaintiff Passenger alleged that upon the collision of the lorry and car, he felt pain in his neck and waist. He then reclined his seat to 45 degrees, and remained in the car throughout the accident.

The Court directed both counsel to have the photographs of the Plaintiff’s carwhich were tendered as evidence at the trial to be enlarged to the biggest size possible. The enlarged photographs showed an empty upright passenger seat in the Plaintiff’s car. Immediately after, the Plaintiff’s counsel asked to be discharged from acting for the Plaintiff Passenger. His application was allowed. The Plaintiff Passenger later applied for leave to discontinue his action. This was granted and the Court fixed the costs in the Defendant’s favour.

The Plaintiff Driver’s counsel subsequently filed an application to discharge himself from acting for the Plaintiff Driver. The application was granted and as the Plaintiff Driver was absent, the Defendants’ counsel applied for the Plaintiff Driver’s claim to be dismissed with costs. The Court granted the application

and dismissed the Plaintiff Driver’s case with costs to the Defendant. The Defendants’ counsel subsequently informed the Court that their clients had lodged a report with the Commercial Affairs Department to investigate the Plaintiffs for possible fraudulent insurance claims arising from the accident.

Family Justice Courts

Expatriate Families and Relocation –Wishes of the Primary Caregiver vs theParamount Interest and Welfareof the Child

In the midst of fiercely contested divorce proceedings, the Family Court allowed a mother’s application to relocate to Canada with her two children aged 6 and 8. This decision was reversed by the High Court on appeal. An appeal against the High Court’s decision has been lodged with the Court of Appeal.

The law in the area of relocation is clear – the welfare of the child is the paramount and overriding consideration. The reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver are important as a child’s welfare is closelylinked to the happiness and well-being of the primary caregiver. Nonetheless, the reasonable wishes of the primary caregiver should not negatively impact the welfare of the child.

The Family Court found that the mother’s desire to relocate was not unreasonable, since the marriage had broken down and she had no support network in Singapore. In addition, she was emotionally weary due to the legal battles. Relocating to Canada would enable her to be more financially independent. The children, too, would benefit from her regaining her self-esteem.

Although the mother had interim care and control of the children, both parents

had joint custody. The father was granted fairly liberal access to the children and continued to be actively involved in their lives. While acknowledging that the relocation would reduce the contact time the fatherwould have with the children, the Family Court concluded that advancements in phone and internet technology could addressthis issue.

The High Court came to a different conclusion. It took the position that the mother’s application was not brought in good faith and that should the relocation be granted, the mother might sever contact with the father in Singapore and frustrate his access. The High Court reiterated the principle that it is in a child’s interest to continue developing meaningful relationships with both his parents, notwithstanding the breakdown of the parents’ marriage.

With an increasing number of expatriate families living in Singapore, the issue of relocation is a relevant issue and the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s decision on this case will be of valuable guidance.

Lump Sum Maintenance

In this case, the parties were married for almost 20 years and had three children. Ancillary matters were agreed upon and a consent order recorded. Less than a year later, they took out applications to vary the consent order: the husband sought to change the maintenance arrangements and division of a piece of property while the wife sought to vary the maintenance sum.

It is pertinent to note that three significant events transpired:` (i) The matrimonial property was eventually sold for a much higher sum than what the parties had contemplated at the consent order stage.

(ii) The wife sought to convert the periodic maintenance payments to a lump sum payment.

(iii) The wife and children relocated to Australia while the husband remarried and remained in Singapore.

The High Court held that it was reasonable to order a lump sum payment of $1 million ($250,000 for the wife and $750,000 for the three children). The husband appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Given the multiplicity of legal proceedings and acrimony between the parties, the Court of Appeal decided that a clean break was desirable such that an order for a lump sum payment was merited. It then went on to consider whether this lump sum payment would financially cripple the husband. There had been an unexpected windfall from the sale of the matrimonial property. The consent order stated that the proceeds from the sale would be divided in the proportions of 80 per cent to the wife and 20 per cent to the husband if the sale price was equal or less than $2.5 million; or 70 per cent to the wife and 30 per cent to the husband should the sale price exceed $2.5 million. The property was eventually sold for $5.1 million.

The husband argued that this windfall departed considerably from the parties’ expectations and thus constituted a material change in circumstances. The wife had in fact received a larger amount than what was initially envisaged and this was sufficient justification for a reduction to the agreed quantum of maintenance. Similarly, as a result of this windfall, the husband too was placed in a better position financially and was able to meet the lump sum ordered by the Court of Appeal.


Nominal Maintenance of an Ex-Wife – $1 or $0

Section 113 of the Women’s Charter enables a divorced woman to seek maintenance for herself from her former husband.

In this case, the ex-wife sought maintenancefrom her ex-husband for herself and a child. Both parties were employed with a comfortable income. In fact, the ex-wife was in a stronger financial position than her ex-husband and had amassed significant assets in her name.

The High Court granted the ex-wife’s application for maintenance for the child, but dismissed the application for maintenance for herself. In dismissing her application, the Judge discussed the award of the nominal $1 maintenance to “preserve” an ex-wife’s rights to maintenance. In his view, this was unnecessary as one can apply to rescind or vary a maintenance order at any time. Mathematically, “0” was a numerical figure that could be varied.

An argument could be made that accordingly, the distinction ought to be between an order for “no maintenance” and an order for “no maintenance with liberty to apply”.

The Judge’s most notable comments in this case were his thoughts that the Women’s Charter ought to be replaced by a wider and more encompassing bill that would be more aptly named the Marriage Charter. This ignited much public debate on the issue of maintenance.

Our International Profile

Institute for Management Development (IMD)World Competitiveness Yearbook 2014

In June 2014, the IMD ranked 60 countries on their ability to create and maintain the competitiveness of enterprises. One assessment component was whether the legal and regulatory framework encouraged the competitiveness of enterprises. In this aspect, Singapore’s ranking has been consistently high since 1997. In 2014, Singapore’s legal framework was once again rated very positively and ranked first, ahead of Hong Kong and Malaysia.

Table 1: IMD – Ranking of Singapore’s Legal and Regulatory Framework

The legal and regulatory framework encouragedthe competitiveness of enterprisesYear Ranking of

SingaporeRating

(0=worst10=best)

No. of countries ranked

2014 1 8.16 60

Another assessment component was whether justice had been fairly administered. Singapore was ranked in the 10th position, maintaining its lead among the Asian economies surveyed. Other Asian nations that were ranked in the top 20 were Japan and Hong Kong, which took 14th and 16th place respectively. Table 2: IMD – Ranking of Singapore’s Administration of Justice

Justice was fairly administered Year Ranking of

SingaporeRating

(0=worst10=best)

No. of countries ranked

2014 10 8.47 60

World Economic Forum (WEF)Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015

The WEF 2014-2015 report ranked 144 countries to present a picture of the competitiveness of the economies. It evaluated 12 pillars of the economy, one of which was the institutional framework. This is a critical component as strong institutions protect the rights of the people and provide the stability and confidence to engage in economic activities. Five sub-indicators under the institutional pillar related to the judiciary were:

(i) Efficiency of Legal Framework in Settling Disputes (ii) Efficiency of Legal Framework in Challenging Regulations (iii) Judicial Independence (iv) Property Rights (v) Intellectual Property Rights

Table 3: WEF – Ranking of Singapore’s Judiciary

Institution Pillar - Ranking of Singapore(Score of 1 = worst, 7 = best)

Year 2014

Efficiency of Legal Framework –(i) Settling Disputes(ii) Challenging Regulations

Rank(i) 1(ii) 21

Score(i) 6.2(ii) 4.4

Judicial Independence Rank 20

Score 5.7

Property RightsRank 2

Score 6.2

Intellectual Property Rights

Rank 2

Score 6.2

In 2014, Singapore scored well in various surveys conducted by several international organisations. These results are a tribute to the high quality of justice dispensed by the Singapore Judiciary.

State Courts, Singapore annual report 201436

Heritage Foundation and Wall Street JournalIndex of Economic Freedom Report

The Index of Economic Freedom measured 186 countries (178 countries were ranked) across 10 indices of economic freedom. In 2014, Singapore was ranked second to Hong Kong in the overall ranking and scored a high of 90 points for the “property rights” index, a score that has been maintained since 1995. The report commented that Singapore has a strong property rights regime, and maintains an efficient judicial framework and its commercial courts function well. New Zealand was the only country that earned a higher property rights grade than Singapore.

The continual strong protection of property rights in Singapore not only lays the groundwork for but also enables the sustainability of economic freedom.

The World Justice ProjectRule of Law Index

The Rule of Law index developed by The World Justice Project assessed countries’ compliance to the Rule of Law. In the report released in 2014, 99 countries were ranked according to nine broad dimensions:

(i) Constraints on Government Power (ii) Absence of Corruption (iii) Order and Security (iv) Fundamental Rights (v) Open Government (vi) Regulatory Enforcement (vii) Civil Justice (viii) Criminal Justice (ix) Informal Justice*

Singapore’s strong footing in the Rule of Law was once again affirmed by the World Justice Project. Not only was it ranked in the top 10 globally, it also received the highest ranking in Asia.

Singapore performed well in all the eightfactors that were ranked, claiming the second position for “Criminal Justice” and “Order and Security”, while netting a place among the top 10 for “Absence of Corruption”, “Civil Justice” and “Regulatory Enforcement”.

Public Perception Survey 2013Public perception surveys are periodically conducted to elicit the public’s opinions on the level of trust and confidence they have in the State Courts and to measure the public’s perception of the quality of the Courts. In 2013, Nexus Link Pte Ltd, an independent marketing research firm, conducted a Public Perception Survey on the State Courts. A total of 1,006 Singaporeans and permanent residents aged 17 and above were surveyed from December 2013 to January 2014.

A 10-point agreement scale was used for this survey. The survey results were presented in percentage of favourability and the findings indicated that the public generally perceived the State Courts positively.

97%

The State Courts administered justice

fairly.

Public Perception Survey 2013Key Results

PUBLICEXPECTATIONS

97%

The State Courts had met the public’s

expectations.

F.A.I.RCore Values of F.A.I.R

97% 94% 99% 99%Fairness Accessibility Integrity, Independence

and ImpartialityResponsiveness

97%

The public had a positive impression of the State Courts.

97%

The State Courts administered justice

effectively.

98%

The State Courts contributed positively to the development of

Singapore.

* “Informal Justice” was not included in the aggregated scores and ranking.

37State Courts, Singapore annual report 2014


The Stakeholders and Strategic Partners Survey is periodically conducted to obtain feedback on whether the State Courts engaged their stakeholders and partners sufficiently and effectively. The survey also allows the State Courts to gain anunderstanding of their stakeholders’ views

and expectations, and consider appropriate enhancements to their communication and engagement strategies. A total of 72 key stakeholders and partners participatedin the survey that was conducted in July 2014. The survey results were presented in percentage of favourability.

The respondents were satisfied with the Courts.

94%

The working relationship was cordial.

100%

The working relationship was open and trusting.

94%

The Courts were receptive and responsive to their views,

recommendations and feedback.

>90%>90%

There was clear communication on the Courts’ objectives and agenda, and two-way

interaction and communication took place.

Survey Results

Stakeholders and partners recognised and acknowledged the Courts’ readiness and openness to collaboration. The findings underscored the excellent working relationship the State Courts have with their stakeholders and partners.

communication

Stakeholders and Strategic Partners Survey 2014

Visits by Distinguished Guests in 2014 Date Details16 -17 Jan Visit of Mr Keith Yeung, SC, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr Michael Wong

Kin-bong, Senior Prosecutor, Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

14 Feb Visit of the Honourable Justice Nyamjav Sandag, Presiding Justice of the Chamber of Criminal Cases, The Supreme Court of Mongolia, and delegation

30 Apr Visit of His Eminent Obaid Bin Abdullah Bin Obaid, Advisor of the Grievance Boardand Chairman of the 10th Development Plan of Grievance Board Team, anddelegation from the Board of Grievances, Ministry of Justice, Saudi Arabia

5 May Visit of Ms Julie Steel, Executive Director, Supreme, District & Land Courts' Service, Queensland, Australia

29 May Visit of Ms Yu Yu Khin, Deputy Director, Prosecution Department, The Union Attorney General's Office, The Republic of the Union of Myanmar

10 -11 Jul Visit of Mr Feng Xiaoguang, Deputy Chief Judge, No. 1 Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court, and delegation from the judiciary of the People’s Republic of China

23 Jul Visit of Mr Gabriel Hiyalwa Nepaya, Chief Legislative Drafter, Ministry of Justice and Deputy Chairperson, 3rd and 4th Magistrates Commission, and delegation from the Ministry of Justice and Magistrates Commission, Namibia

25 Jul Visit of Ms Renee Ebrahim, Deputy Chief Justice ,Thonburi Civil Court, Thailand, anddelegation

5 Aug Visit of the Honourable Justice Yorokamu Bamwine, Principal Judge, Uganda High Court, and delegation

8 Aug Visit of the Honourable Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, Supreme Court of South Australia, and delegation

20 Aug Visit of Sheikh Abdullah Bin Abdulali Al Salami, Undersecretary, Bureau of Investigation and Public Prosecution, Ministry of Interior, Saudi Arabia, and delegation

10 Sep Visit of His Excellency Sheikh Mohammed Amin bin Abdul-Mu’ti Mirdad, Chief of the Court of Appeals and Member of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia, and delegation

3 Oct Visit of the Honourable Justice Katsumi Chiba, Supreme Court of Japan, and delegation

3 Oct Visit of Mr Vikone Bounvilay, Deputy Director, Judicial Administrative System, Ministry of Justice, Lao PDR, and delegation

13 Oct Visit of Judge Kasem Comsatyadham, Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand, and delegation

20 Oct Visit of the Honourable Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, South Africa, and delegation

7 Nov Visit of His Excellency Shaikh Ishaq Bin Ahmed Busaidi, Head of the Supreme Court, Sultanate of Oman, and delegation

13 Nov Visit of Mr Krist Davood, Chief Information Officer, Court Services, Victoria, Australia

1 Dec Visit of Yang Berhormat Puan Hajah Nancy Binti Haji Shukri, de facto Law Minister of Malaysia, and delegation

“Thank you very much for your kind hospitality and for sharing your invaluable experiences and insights.”

Chief Justice Chris KourakisSupreme Court of South Australia

8 August 2014

“We learnt a lot on how to make quality justice more accessible to the people and how important technology is in revolutionising a court system. We intend to learn

from Singapore to improve our court system.”

Chief Justice Mogoeng MogoengSouth Africa

20 October 2014


Work-Life Excellence Award 2014On 7 November 2014, Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts, received the Work-Life Excellence Award 2014 from Mr Tan Chuan Jin, Minister for Manpower, at the Work-Life Excellence Award Gala Dinner organised by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices.

This year, only 10 organisations were conferred the Work-Life Excellence Award, which is the first tier award, the second tier being the Work Life Achiever Award.

The award celebrates the efforts and contributions of organisations that had demonstrated outstanding success in implementing work-life strategies in their workplaces. These efforts have brought many positive outcomes for both employees and employers.

The conferment of this award acknowledges the State Courts as an organisation that appreciates the business value in enhancing their employees’ work-life harmony. They are also recognised for their long-term commitment to promoting greater flexibility and work-life harmony.

“My son was often ill because his immunity level was lower than others. The flexibility to

work from home allowed me to attend to my child, without disrupting the operations at work.”

Ms Alycia Lau

ExecutiveCivil Justice Division

Internship ProgrammesThe State Courts offer internship programmes to students interested in embarking on a legal career. These programmes provide the interns with an insight into the judicial administration process, in an environment of mentorship, interaction and collegiality.

In 2014, there were 15 internship programmes for several organisations, including the Public Service Division, Singapore Academy of Law, Singapore Legal Service Commission, and Temasek Polytechnic.

The interns were students from the local junior colleges, polytechnics, and local and foreign universities. They went through programmes that were specially developed to expose them to the wide range of work done in the State Courts. Interns who were attached to the Courts for a longer period were also assigned projects, where they worked closely with their mentors.

Apart from receiving insight into legal and judicial work, the interns gained a better appreciation of the intricacies involved in legal matters, especially the socio-legal issues and challenges faced by litigants-in-person.

“Having gone through three different internship programmes, I must say that the one by the State Courts was the most organised and well-put together.”

Jarret Huang

Public Service Commission Scholars’ Mid-Course Programme

“On a day-to-day basis, I had the opportunity to attend Community Court Conferences and uncover the different social issues that prompt an offender to commit crime…

Also, the Judges were friendly and personable.

Shen JiayiInternships@Gov Programme

Caseload Profile 2013* 2014(p)

Criminal Justice Division 254,328 240,100

Criminal and Departmental/Statutory Board

Criminal Charges1 61,248 55,300

Departmental/Statutory Board Charges and Summonses

114,462 114,600

Traffic Charges and Summonses 72,365 64,100

Others

Coroner’s Court Cases 4,102 4,300

Magistrate’s Complaints 2,151 1,800

Civil Justice Division 64,424 63,000

Originating Processes 36,272 34,530

Writs of Summonses (DC & MC) 31,710 29,200

Originating Summonses 459 430

Probate 4,103 4,900

Interlocutory Applications 13,658 13,940

Summonses2 9,655 10,100

Summonses for Directions (O.25/37) 3,630 3,500

Summary Judgment (O.14) 373 340

Others

Taxation 150 130

Assessment of Damages 2,408 2,200

Small Claims Tribunals

Claims 11,936 12,200

Caseload and Statistics

(*) Figures for 2013 are subject to revision(p) Projected figures

1 Includes DAC, MAC, PSS, PS & other charges2 Excludes O.25/37

Caseload Profile 2013* 2014(p)

Family Justice Courts 23,494 22,140

Maintenance 6,207 5,890

Fresh Applications 1,532 1,500

Enforcement of Maintenance Orders 3,047 2,900

Variation/Rescission/Suspension of Maintenance Orders 1,169 1,100

Enforcement of the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal Orders 50 50

Enforcement of Syariah Court Orders 409 340

Family Violence 3,380 3,200

Fresh Applications for Personal Protection Order (PPO) 3,147 3,000

Variation/Rescission of PPO 116 80

Breach of PPO 117 120

Divorce

Divorce Writs 6,282 6,100

Ancillary Matters 1,623 1,400

Others

Adoption 379 380

Originating Summonses (Family) 544 710

Breach of Syariah Court Orders 242 230

Summonses (Family)3 3,510 2,920

Youth Court 1,327 1,310

Juvenile Arrest Charges 1,091 1,100

Beyond Parental Control4 89 70

Child Protection Orders4 40 70

Police Summonses/Summonses & Tickets, and Other Charges

107 70

Total 342,246 325,240

3 Includes Divorce, Originating Summons (Family) and Adoption summonses 4 Refers to number of juveniles


State Courts, Singapore annual report 2014 45

Our People

Presiding Judges, Deputy Presiding Judge and Senior District Judges

(Left to Right)

Judicial Commissioner Valerie Thean, Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts (formerly Senior District Judge, Family and Juvenile Justice Division, State Courts)

Senior District Judge (Family Justice Courts) Chia Wee Kiat (appointed on 1 October 2014)

Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts

Deputy Presiding Judge of the State Courts Jennifer Marie

Senior District Judge (Criminal Justice Division) Ong Hian Sun

Senior District Judge (Civil Justice Division) Foo Tuat Yien


During a lunch-time talk on 22 May 2014, Mr Dean Yeo (Assistant Director, CrimeRegistry) and Mr Aston Chow (SeniorAssistant Executive, Finance Department) shared their experiences on serving court users. Staff gained insight into what motivated them to provide excellent court services and learnt some ways to transform each service transaction into a positive one.

National Day and State Courts Awards 2014National Day Awards

Public Administration Medal (Silver)Ms Papinder Kaur

Commendation MedalMs Dalbir KaurMs Nur Izzah Bte Amir

Efficiency MedalMs Rosalind Tan Chye EngMs Rita Anthony

Long Service MedalJudicial Commissioner See Kee OonSenior District Judge Foo Tuat YienSenior District Judge Chia Wee KiatDistrict Judge Chay Yuen FattDistrict Judge Marvin BayDistrict Judge Eddy ThamMs Yasmin Isma Bte Hamzah

State Courts Awards

Manager of the YearMs Sophia AngMs Lim Lay KimMs Shen QinghuiMs Yong Khai Ling

Court Administrator of the YearMr Aston Chow Phone EeMs Shanti d/o RamakrishnanMr Low Khee PorMs Helen Low Peck Lan

Long Service AwardDistrict Judge Tan Boon Heng District Judge Wong PeckMs Chua Hwee Sien SharonMs Norhayati Bte SidekMs Zainah Bte SabtuMs Huang CaiweiMs Noraini Bte HanifahMs Shahidah Bte Sa’aban

Public Service Week ActivitiesThe Public Service Week (PSW) was held from 18 to 23 May 2014 and the theme was “Walking in Step as One Public Service”. The annual event reminds public service officers to take pride in their roles as public officers and to serve with commitment and dedication.

In conjunction with PSW 2014, the State Courts Service Excellence Day cum PSW Observance Ceremony was held on 21 May 2014. Staff renewed their commitment to service excellence by reciting the Public Service pledge. One of the highlights of the Ceremony was the special item, “We are What We Wear”, afashion show in which several sporting

staff members showcased the “dos and don’ts” of office wear. This reinforced the message of bearing a professional image at work, to inspire public confidence in the State Courts.

At the ceremony, Mr Phang Tsang Wing (Senior Assistant Director, Organisational Excellence Unit) and Ms Phebe Ang (Assistant Director, Infrastructure Development Department) were recognised as recipientsof the PS21 Star Service Award 2014. This annual award is accorded to public service officers who had consistently displayed commitment to high standards of service excellence.

The annual Cohesion Day was held on 28 August at the Marina Barrage.

To kick-start the event, the organising committee got on stage and taught everyone several dance moves. Their enthusiasm and energy were contagious and soon, everyone was dancing to the beat.

There were activities for everyone. The physically engaging “Running Man” left many feeling a great sense of accomplishment for having conquered the various challenges posed to them. In the “Hunger Games”, teams equipped with bows and arrows were pitted against each other, turning

the green roof of the Marina Barrage into a “war zone”. For many of those who played “Speed Tag”, it was the first time they handled “NERF” guns, shooting at and taking cover from their opponents. Others learnt to make their own kites and achieved an immense sense of satisfaction when their handiwork soared in the sky. Those who wanted to unleash their musical talents learnt to play the ukulele and strummed to oldies and the latest hits.

It was indeed a “FUNTASTIC” way to spend the afternoon, bonding with fellow colleagues.

Cohesion Day 2014


01 Organisational Excellence Week

04 State Courts Cup - Cross Country Run

08 State Courts Cup - Bowling Tournament

02 State Courts Cup - Indoor Games

05 Pulau Ubin Walk

09 Learning Festival

03 Court Administrators Appreciation Day

06 Cohesion Day

10 East Coast Beach Clean-Up

07 State Courts Cup - Badminton Tournament

Staff Event Highlights

01 Organisational Excellence Week

04 State Courts Cup - Cross Country Run

08 State Courts Cup - Bowling Tournament

02 State Courts Cup - Indoor Games

05 Pulau Ubin Walk

09 Learning Festival

03 Court Administrators Appreciation Day

06 Cohesion Day

10 East Coast Beach Clean-Up

07 State Courts Cup - Badminton Tournament

01 24 March 02 2 April 03 22 April

04 22 May 05 21 June 06 28 August 07 5 September

08 1 November 09 17 November 10 21 November

AcknowledgementsThe Editorial CommitteeCheryl HoMichelle ChiangLim Lay Kim

AdvisorsDistrict Judge Carol LingDistrict Judge Eugene TayMagistrate Olivia Low

In Consultation withJudicial Commissioner See Kee Oon,Presiding Judge of the State CourtsDeputy Presiding Judge Jennifer Marieand the Senior District Judges

With Warmest Appreciation toAll who have contributed to this publication

State Courts, Singapore annual report 201450

State Courts, Singapore

1 Havelock Square Singapore 059724

www.statecourts.gov.sg

www.facebook.com/StateCourtsSingapore

http://www.statecourts.gov.sg

http://www.facebook.com/StateCourtsSingapore

a new chapter - state courts · 2015-06-24 · 4 state courts, singapore annual report 2014 state...

Documents