Judicial system of Singapore

Last updated

Under the Constitution of Singapore, the judicial system of Singapore is divided into the Supreme Court which comprises the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and the subordinate courts, namely the State Courts and Family Justice Courts.

Contents

Singapore practices the common law legal system, where the decisions of higher courts constitute binding precedent upon courts of equal or lower status within their jurisdiction, as opposed to the civil law legal system in continental Europe.

The current criminal code was preceded by the Indian Penal Code which was adopted when Singapore was a Crown colony of the British Empire.

History

Jury trials were abolished in 1969 and the Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 1992 to allow for trials of capital offences to be heard before a single judge. [1] The Court of Appeal is Singapore's final court of appeal after the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London was abolished in April 1994. The president has the power to grant pardons on the advice of the cabinet. [2]

In 2006, the subordinate courts initiated a pilot scheme to appoint specialist judges to the Bench. Such judges came from the legal profession and academia, with the scheme's purpose being to draw expertise to the subordinate courts, giving practitioners and academics judicial experience in the process. [3] The specialist judge scheme has not been continued.

Organisation

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court exercises both original and appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction. [4] The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister. The prime minister must consult with the Chief Justice before recommending the judges.[ citation needed ]

State Courts

The State Courts comprise the District and Magistrate Courts—both of which oversee civil and criminal matters—as well as specialised courts such as the coroner's courts and the Small Claims Tribunals. It hears an average of 350,000 cases per year.[ citation needed ]

Family Justice Courts

The Family Justice Courts was established in 2017 to bring together the courts from the Supreme Court and State Courts that hear cases relating to youth and family issues.[ citation needed ]

Perception

Ranking

In September 2008, a Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey reported Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst: Hong Kong's judicial system scored 1.45 on the scale (zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst); Singapore with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93), the Philippines (6.10), Malaysia (6.47), India (6.50), Thailand (7.00), China (7.25), Vietnam (8.10) and Indonesia (8.26). [5] [6] In 2010, the Rule of Law Index by the World Justice Project ranked Singapore number one for access to civil justice in the high-income countries group. [7] In 2021, the Rule of Law Index ranked Singapore 17th out of 139 countries on rule of law. [8]

Judicial independence

Singapore has a reputation for fairness and impartiality in commercial law, and is a popular jurisdiction for arbitration and trial in Southeast Asia. The Canadian case of Oakwell Engineering v. Enernorth Industries called into question this impartiality and raised the issue of whether the judgments of Singaporean courts are enforceable outside Singapore, but claims of links between the judiciary, business and the executive arm in Singapore which were alleged to suggest a real risk of judicial bias were dismissed in appeals to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and Canadian Supreme Court. [9]

In 2004, the United States Department of State claimed that the President of Singapore and the Minister for Home Affairs have substantial de facto judicial power, leading "to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases." In addition, Singapore's "judicial officials, especially the Supreme Court, have close ties to the ruling party and its leaders". [10] It also claimed that government leaders historically have used court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics, leading to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases. [10] Notable cases include those against opposition leaders J. B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan. In 1997, Australian Q.C. Stuart Littlemore observed the proceedings of a high-profile defamation suit filed by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong against Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). [11] This was followed by his ICJ report stating that the Singapore judiciary was compliant to the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), [12] observations which the Ministry of Law denied, [13] and the ICJ subsequently defended. [14] Littlemore's application to represent Chee Soon Juan in 2002 for another defamation suit was rejected by the High Court for his previous remarks about the judiciary that were seen as contemptuous and disrespectful. [15]

On the other hand, Transparency International noted in its 2006 country study report on Singapore that truth was a defence to the "accusations and insinuations of nepotism and favouritism in government appointments" against government leaders that led to the defamation suits, and "[a]s such, if a serious accusation is made, the public hearing of these suits would give the defendant a prime opportunity to put forward the facts they allege. However, none of the defendants have proved the truth of their allegations." [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

The courts of England and Wales, supported administratively by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. B. Jeyaretnam</span> Singaporean politician

Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, better known as J. B. Jeyaretnam or by his initials JBJ, was a Singaporean politician, lawyer, and judge. A former member of the opposition Workers' Party, he was appointed as secretary-general of the Workers' Party between 1971 and 2001. He served as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Anson SMC between 1981 and 1986 and NCMP between 1997 and 2001 of the 9th Parliament of Singapore. He was the 5th de facto Leader of the Opposition between 1981 and 1986.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Philippines</span> Highest court in the Philippines

The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</span> Final court of appeal in the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom’s highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court (Hong Kong)</span> Superior court of record with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hong Kong

The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a part of the legal system of Hong Kong. It consists of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance; it deals with criminal and civil cases which have risen beyond the lower courts. It is a superior court of record of unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction. It was named the Supreme Court before 1997. Though previously named the Supreme Court, this Court has long been the local equivalent to the Senior Courts of England and Wales and has never been vested with the power of final adjudication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Singapore</span> National supreme court

The Supreme Court of Singapore is a set of courts in Singapore, comprising the Court of Appeal and the High Court. It hears both civil and criminal matters. The Court of Appeal hears both civil and criminal appeals from the High Court. The Court of Appeal may also decide a point of law reserved for its decision by the High Court, as well as any point of law of public interest arising in the course of an appeal from a court subordinate to the High Court, which has been reserved by the High Court for decision of the Court of Appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Singapore</span> Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal of Singapore</span> Supreme appellate court of Singapore

The Court of Appeal of Singapore is the highest court in the judicial system of Singapore. It is the upper division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the lower being the High Court. The Court of Appeal consists of the chief justice, who is the president of the Court, and the judges of the Court of Appeal. The chief justice may ask judges of the High Court to sit as members of the Court of Appeal to hear particular cases. The seat of the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court Building.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Pakistan</span> Hierarchical system with two classes of courts

The judiciary of Pakistan is a hierarchical system with two classes of courts: the superior judiciary and the subordinate judiciary. The superior judiciary is composed of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Federal Shariat Court and five High Courts, with the Supreme Court at the apex. There is a High Court for each of the four provinces as well as a High Court for the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Constitution of Pakistan entrusts the superior judiciary with the obligation to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor a High Court may exercise jurisdiction in relation to Tribal Areas, except otherwise provided for. The disputed regions of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan have separate court systems.

<i>Oakwell Engineering Ltd v Enernorth Industries Inc</i>

Oakwell Engineering Ltd v Enernorth Industries Inc was an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario by Enernorth Industries Inc. (Enernorth), a Canadian company, from a judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granting an application brought by Oakwell Engineering Limited (Oakwell), a Singaporean company, for an order recognizing and enforcing in Ontario a judgment granted against Enernorth by the High Court of Singapore on October 16, 2003 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal of Singapore on April 27, 2004.

A judicial commissioner is person appointed on a non-permanent basis to a judicial office. In some countries, such as Malaysia and Singapore, judicial commissioners have the powers of full judges. In other jurisdictions their powers are limited.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Malaysia</span> Highest court of appeals in Malaysia

The Federal Court of Malaysia is the highest court and the final appellate court in Malaysia. It is housed in the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya. The court was established during Malaya's independence in 1957 and received its current name in 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Jamaica</span>

The judiciary of Jamaica is based on the judiciary of the United Kingdom. The courts are organized at four levels, with additional provision for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. The Court of Appeal is the highest appellate court. The Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction in all cases, and sits as the Circuit Court to try criminal cases. The Parish Court in each parish hears both criminal and civil cases, excluding grave offences. The Petty Sessions are held under Justices of the Peace, with power to hear minor crimes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore</span> Crime in Singapore

In Singapore, the offence of scandalizing the court is committed when a person performs any act or publishes any writing that is calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority. An act or statement that alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence. The High Court and the Court of Appeal are empowered by section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to punish for contempt of court. This provision is statutory recognition of the superior courts' inherent jurisdiction to uphold the proper administration of justice. The Subordinate Courts are also empowered by statute to punish acts of contempt. Although Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore protects every citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression, the High Court has held that the offence of scandalizing the court falls within the category of exceptions from the right to free speech expressly stipulated in Article 14(2)(a). Some commentators have expressed the view that the courts have placed excessive value on protecting the independence of the judiciary, and have given insufficient weight to free speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Doctrine of bias in Singapore law</span> Principle of appellate law in Singapore

Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law which a person can rely upon to challenge the judgment of a court or tribunal, or a public authority's action or decision. There are three forms of bias, namely, actual, imputed and apparent bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial independence in Singapore</span> Judicial independence in the nation

Judicial independence is protected by Singapore's Constitution, statutes such as the State Courts Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act, and the common law. Independence of the judiciary is the principle that the judiciary should be separated from legislative and executive power, and shielded from inappropriate pressure from these branches of government, and from private or partisan interests. It is crucial as it serves as a foundation for the rule of law and democracy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rule of law doctrine in Singapore</span> Law doctrine in Singapore

In Singapore, the rule of law doctrine has been the topic of considerable disagreement and debate, largely through differing conceptions of the doctrine. These conceptions can generally be divided into two categories developed by legal academics, the "thin", or formal, conception and the "thick", or substantive, conception of the rule of law. The thin conception, often associated with the legal scholars Albert Venn Dicey and Joseph Raz, advocates the view that the rule of law is fulfilled by adhering to formal procedures and requirements, such as the stipulations that all laws be prospective, clear, stable and constitutionally enacted, and that the parties to legal disputes are treated equally and without bias on the part of judges. While people subscribing to the thin conception do not dismiss the importance of the content of the law, they take the view that this is a matter of substantive justice and should not be regarded as part of the concept of the rule of law. On the other hand, the thick conception of the rule of law entails the notion that in addition to the requirements of the thin rule, it is necessary for the law to conform with certain substantive standards of justice and human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Mauritius</span> The Mauritius Supreme Court formed 1850

The Supreme Court of Mauritius is the highest court of Mauritius and the final court of appeal in the Mauritian judicial system. It was established in its current form in 1850, replacing the Cour d'Appel established in 1808 during the French administration and has a permanent seat in Port Louis. There is a right of appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius directly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the court of final appeal for Mauritius.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Solomon Islands</span>

The judiciary of Solomon Islands is a branch of the Government of Solomon Islands that interprets and applies the laws of Solomon Islands, to ensure equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The legal system is derived from chapter VII, part II of the Constitution, adopted when the country became independent from the United Kingdom in 1978. The Constitution provided for the creation of a High Court, with original jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, and a Court of Appeal. It also provided for the possibility of "subordinate courts", with no further specification (art.84).

References

  1. "Supreme Court Singapore - History". Supreme Court of Singapore. Archived from the original on 16 October 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
  2. "Constitution of the Republic of Singapore - Part V (The Government)". Attorney-General of Singapore. Archived from the original on 18 December 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
  3. "Dean Tan Cheng Han S.C. '87 appointed Specialist Judge" (PDF). National University of Singapore. 3 August 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 December 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
  4. "Supreme Court of Judicature Act". Attorney-General of Singapore. Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
  5. "Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey". Archived from the original on 21 May 2011.
  6. "Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey". ABS-CBN News. Agence France-Presse. Archived from the original on 14 June 2020. Retrieved 22 July 2020.
  7. "S'pore justice system top in global survey". Archived from the original on 10 January 2011. Retrieved 8 January 2011.
  8. "Singapore ranked 17 out of 139 countries on rule of law, dropping three positions" (PDF). World Justice Project. 14 October 2021.
  9. K.C. Vijayan, "Payout Fight Over 'Biased Judiciary' Rejected: Firm's Final Bid to Canada's Highest Court Fails, so S'pore Court Judgment Stands", The Straits Times (27 January 2007).
  10. 1 2 Singapore, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, United States Department of State, 28 February 2005.
  11. Richard Lloyd Parry (4 October 1997), "Political storm over a teacup", The Independent , London, archived from the original on 21 August 2017.
  12. [Stuart Littlemore] (11 September 1998), ICJ condemns parody of justice in Singapore, International Commission of Jurists, archived from the original on 9 July 2016.
  13. Warren Fernandez (3 October 1997), "QC's report made false statements, says Govt", The Straits Times (reproduced on Singapore Window), archived from the original on 16 June 2010.
  14. "ICJ defends observer Littlemore's report", The Straits Times (reproduced on Singapore Window), 23 October 1997, archived from the original on 21 June 2013.
  15. Re Littlemore Stuart QC, [2002] SGHC 16, [2002] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 198, High Court (Singapore), archived from the original on 21 August 2017; Mark Baker (20 April 2002), "Chee loses bid for help in case", The Age , Melbourne, archived from the original on 21 August 2017.
  16. Simon S.C. Tay (2006), National Integrity Systems: Transparency International Country Study Report: Singapore 2006 (PDF), Berlin: Transparency International, pp. 23–24, archived (PDF) from the original on 17 October 2011, retrieved 22 August 2017. See also Karen Blöchlinger (2000), "Primus Inter Pares: Is the Singapore Judiciary First among Equals?", Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal , 9 (3): 591–618.

Further reading