Connect with us

Court Cases

Foreign counsel denied right to address Singapore court on own ad-hoc admission application

The Singapore Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, dismissed an appeal by two King’s Counsel seeking to represent clients in Singapore without local admission. The court upheld that foreign counsel, applying for ad hoc admission, cannot personally argue their own application.

Published

on

On 25 September 2024, the Singapore Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in two civil appeals, ruling that foreign counsel seeking ad hoc admission cannot personally argue their own applications before the court.

The appeals, heard by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice of Appeal Belinda Ang Saw Ean, and Senior Judge Judith Prakash, concerned two King’s Counsel—Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC—who sought ad hoc admission under Singapore’s Legal Profession Act (LPA) to represent clients in civil proceedings.

The court’s decision has significant implications for foreign legal practitioners seeking temporary admission into Singapore’s legal system.

The appellants, Mr Kassimatis KC and Mr Fitzgerald KC, applied for ad hoc admission to act as advocates for Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, Saminathan Selvaraju, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, and Lingkesvaran Rajendaren—four individuals convicted under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), all of whom were sentenced to death.

The appellants sought to represent the claimants in civil appeals, challenging certain provisions of the MDA and prior convictions. Both the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore opposed their admission.

In earlier proceedings, a High Court judge dismissed their applications, and a preliminary issue arose as to whether the appellants, being foreign counsel not yet admitted to the Singapore Bar, could address the court on the merits of their own ad hoc admission applications. The High Court ruled that they could not, prompting this appeal.

The main legal question concerned whether foreign counsel applying for ad hoc admission under section 15 of the LPA could be considered “self-represented” and thus entitled to personally argue their own application under an exception in section 34(1)(e) of the LPA.

Section 33 of the LPA prohibits unauthorized individuals from acting as advocates or solicitors, with section 34(1)(e) providing an exemption for individuals acting in matters in which they are personally involved.

The appellants contended that they were self-represented in their applications and were not acting as advocates for others.

They argued that they should be allowed to address the court in their own interest since the applications were personally theirs.

Furthermore, they challenged the High Court’s interpretation of Re Nicholas William Henric QC, a case that had previously dealt with the issue of foreign counsel seeking admission in Singapore.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the appellants were not self-represented persons acting in their own legal interests but were instead applying for the right to represent their clients in separate legal matters.

The court emphasized that the ad hoc admission process under section 15 of the LPA is fundamentally about whether a foreign lawyer should be granted the privilege to represent another party in court, rather than their own interests.

The judges highlighted that “the real question” in ad hoc admission cases is whether the foreign counsel’s client is entitled to have the applicant represent them. This precludes the foreign counsel from arguing their own case for admission.

The court further clarified that section 34(1)(e) of the LPA does not override the broader restrictions in section 32, which prohibits unauthorized persons from practising as advocates or solicitors.

While the LPA allows some exemptions for self-represented litigants under section 33, these do not extend to foreign counsel applying for admission to represent others.

The court noted that the appellants, by seeking ad hoc admission, were effectively attempting to perform functions reserved for local advocates and solicitors, thus falling within the scope of the prohibitions in the LPA.

The appellants’ reliance on the Re Henric case was found to be misplaced.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the High Court’s interpretation was correct, and the precedent set by Re Henric did not support the appellants’ position that they could address the court in their own admission applications.

The court dismissed the appeal on the preliminary objection, confirming that the appellants could not personally address the court in their ad hoc admission cases.

However, the ruling leaves the door open for the claimants to engage local counsel to represent them in the upcoming hearing on 9 October 2024, where the substantive issues regarding the appellants’ applications will be argued.

Additionally, the claimants are permitted to address the court personally if they choose not to engage local counsel.

Continue Reading
6 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Court Cases

Two men acquitted in corruption case involving former LTA director due to unreliable CPIB statements

Two men accused of corruption in relation to a former LTA director were acquitted on 11 October 2024. The trial judge found that statements taken by CPIB officers were unreliable and inaccurate, affecting the credibility of the case.

Published

on

Two men accused in a corruption case involving a former deputy group director of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Henry Foo Yung Thye, were acquitted on 11 October 2024.

The trial judge ruled that the statements taken by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had been unreliable and inaccurate, resulting in the acquittal of Mr Pay Teow Heng, 56, and Mr Pek Lian Guan, 59. Both had been charged in July 2020 for allegedly bribing Foo to secure business advantages for their company, Tiong Seng Contractors.

District Judge Soh Tze Bian issued a detailed 52-page judgment highlighting the procedural flaws in the case.

He emphasized that the conduct of the CPIB officers responsible for recording statements from Mr Pay and Mr Pek raised significant doubts about the reliability of the evidence against the accused. The judge found that the statements obtained from the two men were “inaccurate, unreliable and unsafe” to rely on, leading to their acquittal on all charges.

The accusations against Mr Pay and Mr Pek centred on two counts, each under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Mr Pay, then the director of Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of offering S$350,000 in bribes to Henry Foo on two occasions in 2017 and 2018 to advance the company’s interests with the LTA. Mr Pek, the managing director of Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of aiding Mr Pay in the alleged offences.

On 2 September 2021, Henry Foo was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment for corruption. Additionally, a penalty order of S$1,156,250 (in default, 12 months’ imprisonment) was imposed on him.

Issues with the CPIB Investigation

A key factor in the acquittal was the conduct of two CPIB investigating officers (IOs), Chris Lim and another officer identified only as Jeffrey. According to Judge Soh, their methods of recording statements from the accused demonstrated a lack of objectivity and integrity.

Mr Lim, who recorded Mr Pay’s second statement, admitted during the trial that he had approached the interview with a “preconceived notion” of Mr Pay’s guilt.

Judge Soh criticized Mr Lim’s handling of the statement, noting that he retyped the statement with his own wording after Mr Pay suggested amendments. This action left Mr Pay unable to verify whether his changes were accurately reflected, raising questions about the reliability of the statement.

Similarly, IO Jeffrey’s conduct in recording Mr Pek’s first statement was found to be flawed. The judge noted that Jeffrey had used a “cut-and-paste method” to compile the statement, which included repeated self-incriminating remarks.

The judge remarked that the statement seemed more like a “product of IO Jeffrey’s authorship than an accurate account of what Pek actually communicated.” During cross-examination, Jeffrey admitted that he had crafted the statement to suggest that Mr Pek was the originator of the corrupt scheme.

The judge noted: “By IO Jeffrey’s own admission, he drafted Pek’s first statement with the intention to ‘frame’ Pek, focusing almost exclusively on recording information that supported Pek’s culpability, rather than objectively establishing the facts of the case.”

He stated that these actions by the IOs made it unsafe to rely on the statements as evidence of guilt.

Testimony of Key Witness Henry Foo

Another critical aspect of the judgment involved the testimony of Henry Foo, the former LTA official who received the alleged bribes.

Foo, who was called as a prosecution witness, testified that neither Mr Pay nor Mr Pek had requested any favours in return for the loans they extended to him. He maintained that the loans were offered out of goodwill and friendship, rather than as part of a corrupt arrangement.

Judge Soh noted that the prosecution had failed to challenge or impeach Foo’s credibility, making his testimony more reliable in the eyes of the court.

Furthermore, Foo had testified that he pleaded guilty to the charges against him in 2021 not because he believed in his own guilt, but to avoid the prolonged distress of a trial. Judge Soh rejected the prosecution’s argument that Foo’s guilty plea should be seen as an admission of his own corrupt intent and that of Mr Pay and Mr Pek.

Foo was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison in September 2021 after being found guilty of accepting S$1.24 million in bribes.

His guilty plea, however, did not directly implicate Mr Pay and Mr Pek in corrupt activities, according to the judge’s assessment.

Outcome and Next Steps

Judge Soh concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Mr Pay and Mr Pek beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a result, he ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal for both men, clearing them of all charges.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is currently reviewing the judgment to determine the next course of action, as confirmed by an AGC spokesperson.

Both Mr Pay and Mr Pek had stepped down from their roles at Tiong Seng Holdings after the charges were brought against them in 2020.

Several other individuals, including former directors of other engineering firms, have been sentenced to jail in connection with the corruption scheme involving Henry Foo.

Continue Reading

Court Cases

3 Chinese nationals linked to global cybercrime syndicate face new charges in Singapore

New charges were filed on 8 October against three Chinese nationals linked to an alleged global cybercrime syndicate in Singapore. One suspect faces allegations of receiving S$11.6 million from “Biao Ge,” purportedly used for the upkeep and expenses of the group. The nationals entered Singapore on construction work passes but reportedly did not stay at their registered workplaces.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: New charges were tendered on Tuesday (8 October 2024) against three Chinese nationals implicated in an alleged global cybercrime syndicate based in Singapore.

The latest revelations indicate a flow of funds amounting to approximately S$11.6 million (US$8.9 million) dedicated to the upkeep of the group and its connections to South Korea.

As reported by CNA, the court records, charge sheets, and a prior press statement jointly issued by the police and the Internal Security Department (ISD) outline that the trio is part of a larger group of seven men, all Chinese nationals except one Singaporean.

According to a police statement issued on 10 September, The group is accused of operating from a bungalow in Mount Sinai and is believed to be linked to a global syndicate involved in cybercrime activities.

Authorities seized laptops and devices from the suspects, which contained credentials to access Internet servers associated with known hacker groups, stolen data belonging to foreign victims, computer hacking tools exploiting vulnerabilities in Internet servers, and specialised software to control malware.

The Chinese nationals reportedly gained entry into Singapore with work passes intended for construction work but allegedly did not stay at their registered employer’s workplace.

The suspects were apprehended on 9 September in simultaneous island-wide raids conducted by approximately 160 officers from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and ISD.

The seven accused men are: Sun Jiao, 42, Zhang Qingqiao, 38, Chen Yiren, 42, Yan Peijian, 38, Huang Qin Zheng, 35, Liu Yuqi, 32, and Singaporean Goh Shi Yong, 34. The three men receiving fresh charges on Tuesday are Sun, Zhang, and Chen.

Chen Allegedly Received S$11.6 Million for Criminal Group’s Expenses

Chen’s new charge alleges he received S$11.6 million from an individual known as “Biao Ge”, which he purportedly spent on the rent, upkeep, and expenses of an organised criminal group, including Yan, Huang, Liu, and Sun.

This allegedly covers funding for the Mount Sinai bungalow. Of the total amount, Chen is accused of having “expended” about S$399,000 on 11 occasions between 2022 and 2024, under the Organised Crime Act.

Zhang faces new accusations of abetting two individuals—Lim Clovis Leslie and Lee Kok Leong—to obtain the personal information of unknown individuals on 28 July 2023.

Meanwhile, Sun has been charged with sending a file containing the personal information of 1,055 unknown individuals from South Korea to a WhatsApp chat group on 12 August 2023, while he was in Singapore.

Additionally, he is accused of receiving 772,500 USDT in cryptocurrency from a wallet belonging to co-accused Liu, which allegedly stemmed from criminal conduct.

Suspects Accused of Targeting Websites to Exploit Vulnerabilities and Trade Stolen Personal Data

Previous charges against the suspects depict them as targeting websites to scan for open ports and exploit vulnerabilities, offering to purchase personal information of Indian nationals from gambling websites, and sending a file containing the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand to other parties.

According to a prosecutor’s submissions in unsuccessful bail reviews on 1 October, the Chinese nationals involved are foreigners engaged in syndicated, transnational offences, with amounts involved “in excess of S$1 million”.

The public hearing list indicates that Sun is defended by Mr Hong Qibin, Ms Elaine Cai, and Mr Daniel Chia from Coleman Street Chambers. Yan is represented by Mr Ong Kelvin from Contigo Law, while Chen is defended by Mr Steven John Lam from Templars Law.

Both Huang and Liu are represented by Mr Lee Teck Leng from Legal Clinic.

Zhang is defended by Mr Sunil Sudheesan and Ms Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer, and Goh is represented by Mr Soon Wei Song from Goh JP & Wong.

Sun and Chen are scheduled for bail reviews on 10 October. They have been remanded for approximately a month, while the other five men are set to return to court later this month.

In addition to the main group, two Malaysian men, Seow Gim Shen (42) and Kong Chien Hoi (39)  are facing charges in Singapore for conspiring to supply the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand in a file sent from Singapore. They are expected to plead guilty next week.

Continue Reading

Trending