enhancing the public value of justice · reputation for innovation and efficiency in court...

ENHANCING THE PUBLICVALUE OF JUSTICE

Subordinate CourtsAnnual Report 2008

CONTENTS

Foreword by The Honourable the Chief Justice 02

Message from the Senior District Judge 04

Our Constitution, Organisation and Philosophy 10

Our Divisions

Criminal Justice Division 18

Civil Justice Division 30

Family and Juvenile Justice Division 44

Corporate Services Division 56

Strategic Planning and Training Division 62

Special Features

A Tribute to Former Senior District JudgeRichard Magnus 70

Significant Cases in 2008 74

Continuing Judicial Education 82

Notes of Appreciation 84

International Ratings and Accolades 86

Caseload 91

01

“Every year we encounter changes in our socialenvironment to which the courts have torespond when they result in more litigationbefore the courts. The function of the courtsis to ensure that they deliver just outcomesin all cases. For this year’s Workplan, wewill focus on improving certain aspects ofour family and juvenile justice processes andother matters within the broad theme of‘Enhancing the Public Value of Justice’.”

17th Subordinate CourtsWorkplan 2008/2009Friday 9 May 2008

Keynote Address By The Honourablethe Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong


FOREWORD BYTHE HONOURABLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE


02/03

Our courts have gained an enviable internationalreputation for innovation and efficiency in courtadministration and in delivering justice. This reputationis due, in large measure, to the many programmes andprojects initiated by the Subordinate Courts throughthe annual workplans.

But, more importantly, it is the quality of justice, andhow justice is administered by the Subordinate Courts,that matter to the public generally and to the litigantsin particular as their lives and fortunes are directlyaffected by the decisions of the courts. It is encouragingto note that the public trust and confidence in thefair administration of justice are at the highest levelsince the Subordinate Courts started commissioningindependent public perception surveys in 1997.

The excellent state of the Subordinate Courts has beendue to the untiring work of Senior District JudgeRichard Magnus who retired in August 2008 and wassucceeded by Senior District Judge Tan Siong Thye.SDJ Richard Magnus has left a legacy that our judicialsystem can be proud of. His annual workplans, thefirst of which he inaugurated in 1992, were thebeginning of a strategy to modernise the administrationof justice in the Subordinate Courts. Each annualworkplan would set out clearly the goals for the yearand what needed to be done to realise them. It is avery focused, systematic and goal-oriented judicialmanagement approach. By 2001, his nine workplansproduced such impressive results in transforming thecourt process and the delivery of justice in Singaporethat the World Bank decided to recommend these

judiciary-led reforms as a model of public sectorgovernance that could be applied to countries whosecourt systems needed reforms to bring them to the ageof the internet.

The Subordinate Courts has started a new chapter withSDJ Tan Siong Thye since August 2008. He has theworkplan for 2008/2009, and I am confidentthat he will work equally tirelessly to uphold the highstandards achieved in the administration of justice andfurther enhance the public esteem of the SubordinateCourts. This Annual Report is a testament to thecontinuing work of SDJ Tan Siong Thye in that regard.I commend the Subordinate Courts for its efforts andwide-ranging initiatives aimed at enhancing its servicesto the public.

As our nation confronts a global financial crisisand economic recession, which will impact on theadministration of justice, it is necessary to remindourselves that even in these difficult times, the judiciarymust remain steadfast to the fundamental principlesof upholding the Rule of Law, enhancing access tojustice, and administering justice in a fair and impartialmanner, and without fear or favour.

CHAN SEK KEONG

CHIEF JUSTICE

REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

Even in these difficult times, the judiciary must remain steadfast tothe fundamental principles of upholding the Rule of Law.

MESSAGE FROMTHE SENIORDISTRICT JUDGE


04/05

18TH SUBORDINATE COURTS WORKPLAN

In view of the current global financial crisis, it is aptthat the theme for the 18th Subordinate CourtsWorkplan for 2009/2010 is about “Delivering Justicein Difficult Times”. In The Honourable the Chief Justice’sKeynote Address, he reminded us of our critical rolein delivering justice at all times, good or bad. Therefore,although the current recession has resulted in morecivil and criminal actions in our courts, we shall remainsteadfast in our mission to administer justice fairly,uphold the Rule of Law and enhance access to justice.

Our workplan initiatives are not goals in themselves, butare building blocks in developing an organisation thatcontinually strives to provide better services to the public.

ASIA-PACIFIC JUDICIAL REFORM FORUM

2008 proved to be a busy year as we instituted variousinitiatives for take-off and implementation in 2009.Preparations also began last year for the Round TableMeeting of the Asia-Pacific Judicial Reform Forum.The Singapore Academy of Law, the Supreme Courtand the Subordinate Courts hosted this Forum, heldin January 2009. The participants, including severalChief Justices, found this Forum beneficial. This eventwas a resounding success.

DELIVERING JUSTICE

The Subordinate Courts is a service provider. Thisservice is to administer justice both in form and

On 27 August 2008, the Subordinate Courts saw asignificant milestone in our history with the retirementof Senior District Judge Richard Magnus after 16sterling years as head of the Subordinate Courts.

I am humbled and privileged to have inherited anorganisation that is the envy of many jurisdictions. TheSubordinate Courts has been internationally recognisedas an outstanding judicial institution renowned for itsinnovative judicial and administrative reforms, efficiency,as well as for its delivery of high quality justice.

17TH SUBORDINATE COURTS WORKPLAN

At the 17th Subordinate Courts Workplan for2008/2009, The Honourable the Chief Justice ChanSek Keong in his Keynote Address reminded us thatour courts have to respond to the changes in our socio-economic environment, and that the function of ourcourts is to ensure that we deliver just outcomes in allcases. He emphasised improving our court systems andprocesses within the broad theme of “Enhancing thePublic Value of Justice”.

To this end, various seminal initiatives were implemented.These include the CHILD Programme and FamilyCHILD Court, the Children Care Court and theNeighbourhood Court. The Community Court also beganhearing all cases involving offenders under 21 years ofage and all cases involving shop theft, as its restorativeapproach to justice is ideal in dealing with such offenders.

Our workplan initiatives are not goals in themselves, but are buildingblocks in developing an organisation that continually strives to providebetter services to the public.


processes, expand the application of ADR and promoteADR, especially mediation.

COURT WELFARE SCHEMES AND STREAMLINING

PRO BONO SERVICES

The Subordinate Courts will also embark on severalnew initiatives to enhance access to justice, particularlyfor those in need such as the poor, the less educatedand the intellectually challenged. These will includethe Court Welfare Schemes for early referral to existingwelfare agencies, the Ministry of CommunityDevelopment, Youth and Sports or the Family ResourceCentre of the Singapore Prisons Service for families indistress, as well as streamlining the pro bono legalrepresentation scheme in the Community Court tocut down administrative processing times and facilitateearlier access to defence counsel.

USE OF VIDEO LINK TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

AND REDUCE SECURITY RISK

To further improve the criminal justice processes,we have instituted various initiatives to enhanceefficiency, productivity, court services and security.These include employing video-linked hearings for allbail mentions and applications, as well as all for pre-trial conferences (“PTCs”) involving remanded accusedpersons. Since February 2009, all criminal PTCs, savefor those within the Community Court cluster, havebeen centralised in a single PTC Court instead of fourdifferent courts previously.

substance in order to resolve people’s differences justlyand impartially.

Judicial decisions are not arrived at through anarithmetic exercise or application of scientific formulae– decisions are influenced by each individual judge’sinnate sense of judgment and justice. As an elementof subjectivity in the decision-making process isinevitable, it is very important to ensure that thedecision or judgment is not only correct on the meritsof the case, but that it must be seen by the parties andthe public to be unbiased and fair. People who seekredress from the Subordinate Courts must be assuredthat they will be accorded a fair hearing in court evenif the outcome may not be in their favour. Every manand woman who comes to the Subordinate Courtsmust have the confidence that there is due process ofthe law, both in form and substance.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE

RESOLUTION (“ADR”) ADVISORY COUNCIL

To allow our court users to seek redress throughmethods other than litigation, we have establishedthe ADR Advisory Council which will guide usin developing our ADR practice. Alternative formsof dispute resolution such as mediation offeradvantages over litigation in terms of cost and time,considerations which carry much weight in thecurrent economic climate. The Subordinate Courtsthus aims to enhance the quality of our ADR

The Subordinate Courts will also embark on several new initiativesto enhance access to justice, particularly for those in need such asthe poor, the less educated and the intellectually challenged.


06/07

INSTITUTIONALISING KAIZEN – CONTINUOUS

IMPROVEMENT

In order to cut red tape and bureaucratic processes, weshall institutionalise Kaizen, which is a Japanese toolused to remove waste and unnecessary processes.Applying Kaizen methodology, we examined our bailprocesses and engaged all the relevant parties. Withthe cooperation of all stakeholders, we managed toreduce the waiting time for bail processing from oneworking day to one hour. We have also extended policebail for cases that do not require verification, that is,bail amounts not exceeding $10,000. For such cases,there is no waiting time.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND TRAINING DIVISION

The Strategic Planning and Training Division wasestablished to ensure that the Subordinate Courtscontinues to deliver quality justice both in form andsubstance, and further propels the organisation togreater heights. This division will chart the strategicthrust of the Subordinate Courts, set up the trainingroadmap of judicial officers, as well as oversee thetraining requirements of the court administrators.Training is the key to upgrading our skills so as toimprove our services to the public.

We cannot fight future battles with armies preparedfor the last war. The world around us is constantlychanging and we must move along with these changes.If we remain static while the world outside the

Subordinate Courts continues to evolve, we willeventually be drowned under the tsunami of change. Itis therefore important that our people are systematicallytrained to handle both current and future challenges.

SERVICE-CENTRIC CULTURE

In administering justice, we must not forget that weare serving our court users. The Subordinate Courtsplaces great importance on having a service-centricculture. To enhance our services, we made structuralchanges to our public amenities. The removal ofinappropriate glass barriers at service counters helps tofacilitate better communication and enables court staffto render more effective and friendlier services. TheSubordinate Courts Information Counter was upgradedand is now strategically located at the entrance lobbyof our building. It is staffed by officers who are trainedto handle a high volume of public queries in a courteousand professional manner. Signage to help our courtusers navigate our buildings has also been enhanced.

We used to have a crowd outside Court 26 in themorning, and for the Night Courts. On days withlonger hearing lists, the crowd would be larger. Thecrowding posed a potential security risk and obstructedother court users as it jammed the main thoroughfareon the ground level. It was also unsightly and wastedthe valuable time of court users. After making concertedchanges to the system, including staggered hours,re-distribution of the case load and with the cooperation

The Subordinate Courts places great importance on having aservice-centric culture.


desire and commitment to excel in whatever we do,and that the Subordinate Courts is also a compassionateorganisation where justice is administered and deliveredefficiently and fairly.

Our commitment to the people of Singapore must beto create a better justice system and hence a betterSingapore for all of us.

IMPORTANCE OF THE JUDICIARY

The importance of having an uncorrupted andincorruptible judiciary cannot be overemphasised. Anation without an independent and upright justicesystem will quickly disintegrate. Anarchy, publicdisorder and vigilante justice will soon emerge. Thus,the dispensation of fair and impartial justice is a criticalservice to our nation. Our officers must have thehighest standard of integrity and people must neverlose confidence in our courts.

A LEARNING ORGANISATION

To ensure that we maintain the highest standards ofexcellence, we must continuously improve ourselves, bothas individuals and collectively as an organisation. Wemust work as an integrated team, have a shared visionand see the organisation as a whole, rather than individualunits or divisions. It is vital that the Subordinate Courtsstrives to be a Learning Organisation, ever ready to learnfrom the experiences of others, and also to learn from ourown inadequacies and mistakes, as well as our successes.

of stakeholders, this problem of crowding was solvedand court users’ waiting time has also been reducedsubstantially.

For the convenience of the public, our essential servicecounters which have a high volume of public interactionwill remain operational during lunch hours. These aresome of the many initiatives that are being implementedto improve our services to court users.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE RELATIONS UNIT

AND ORGANISATIONAL FEEDBACK FORUM

The Subordinate Courts will constantly monitor thestandards of our court services to ensure that we arenot complacent. We will establish a dedicated ServiceRelations Unit to oversee the quality and delivery ofour various court services and ensure that we remainconnected to our stakeholders and the public, as wellas to receive feedback and enhance our performance.

We will also set up the Organisational Feedback Forum,which allows feedback from stakeholders such as theAttorney-General’s Chambers, the Law Society andthe Home Team on any major initiatives which weimplement which will affect their workflow andmanpower issues.

SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF SINGAPORE

Good court services are crucial. The message to ourcourt users must be that our people have the passion,

Our commitment to the people of Singapore must be to create a betterjustice system and hence a better Singapore for all of us.


08/09

The Subordinate Courts has started to embrace a cultureof a Learning Organisation, nurturing a philosophythat focuses on continuous improvement at all levelsof our organisation, fostering a collegiate spirit wherebyevery officer and every idea to improve our systemsand processes is valued.

PEOPLE ARE OUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET

The physical structure of the Subordinate Courts buildingin itself is unable to administer justice. It is the peopleworking in this building who, in one way or another,dispense justice and discharge our statutory functions.The judicial officers and court staff are the mostimportant and valuable asset of this organisation. I haveregular dialogue sessions with the judicial officers andstaff to ensure that their interests are well looked after.

DUE RECOGNITION TO VOLUNTEERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

The Subordinate Courts has many volunteer officers,Justices of the Peace, mediators, counsellors and advisers,all who have contributed to the administration of justicein no small measure. In recognition of their invaluablecontributions, the Subordinate Courts will organise anannual Volunteers’ Night. This event will be speciallydedicated to our volunteers so that we can acknowledgeand thank them for their tireless and selfless services.

LEVERAGING ON TEAM SYNERGY TO MOVE AHEAD

For us to serve the public better, we have to work asa team. Teamwork also means that we are able to rely

on the knowledge and expertise of our colleagues. Wemust ensure that the spirit of teamwork is pervasive inour workplace.

Amongst our judicial officers, we have, collectively,innumerable years of experience. When we come acrossan unfamiliar, novel or difficult situation, we will tapon each others’ wealth of expertise and experience.

Teamwork will enhance cohesiveness and build a resilientSubordinate Courts. There will be team buildingactivities and cohesion programmes aimed at fosteringteam spirit and esprit de corps amongst our staff. Wealso look forward to our inaugural Corporate Retreatthis year where we will review our Justice Statementand start our strategic planning cycle for 2010.

CONCLUSION

This Annual Report stands as a tribute to the tirelesseffort and dedication of our judicial officers, courtadministrators and staff in upholding the high standardsof judicial excellence. I am confident that my team ofofficers will continue this journey with me to faithfullyserve the Subordinate Courts and scale even greaterheights of excellence.

TAN SIONG THYE

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

The Subordinate Courts has started to embrace a culture of aLearning Organisation...

“In the past two years, the SubordinateCourts have worked hard to continue withthe successful programmes initiated underprevious Workplans. We have introducedand strengthened our judicial system toprovide greater access to justice. Thepublic, as a whole, I believe, has confidencein the fair administration of justice byour courts.”




10/11

OUR CONSTITUTION,ORGANISATION AND

PHILOSOPHY

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE WITHPRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGES

OUR CONSTITUTION,ORGANISATION ANDPHILOSOPHY


12/13

Left to right

Registrar Hoo Sheau PengPrincipal District Judge Liew Thiam LengSenior District Judge Tan Siong ThyePrincipal District Judge Khoo Oon Soo


OUR CONSTITUTION

Article 93 of the Constitution of the Republic ofSingapore vests the judicial power of Singapore in theSupreme Court and the Subordinate Courts.

The Subordinate Courts, as constituted by the SubordinateCourts Act (Cap. 321) (“the Act”), consists of DistrictCourts, Magistrates’ Courts, the Juvenile Court, theCoroner’s Court and the Small Claims Tribunals. Someof the District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts are alsodesignated as specialist courts – these include the FamilyCourt, the Criminal Mentions Court, the CommunityCourt, the Traffic Court, the Bail Court and the NightCourts. The Primary Dispute Resolution Centre alsoforms part of the Subordinate Courts.

The District Judges and Magistrates of the SubordinateCourts are appointed by the President on therecommendation of the Chief Justice pursuant tosections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Act respectively. Theyalso hold concurrent appointments as Deputy Registrars,Coroners and Referees of the Small Claims Tribunals.

OUR BENCH

Many of our District Judges and Magistrates alsopreside in various Administrative Tribunals and Boards,such as the Military Court of Appeal, CopyrightTribunal, Industrial Arbitration Court, Anti-DumpingTribunal, Goods and Services Tax Board of Review,Income Tax Board of Review, Valuation Review Board,Appeal Advisory Panel, Liquors Licensing Board, Law

Senior District Judge Tan Siong Thye’s Oath-taking Ceremony on 28 August 2008


Society Inquiry Panel, Inquiry and DisciplinaryCommittee Panel (Legal Profession Act), Land TransportAuthority Compensation Board, MUIS Appeal Board,Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, Requisition ofResources Compensation Board, and Board of Visitorsof Drug Rehabilitation Centres.

The members of our Bench may be appointed fromthe ranks of the Legal Service Officers, formerpractitioners from the legal profession and even fromacademia. The Ad Hoc District Judge and DeputyRegistrar scheme also allows the Subordinate Courtsto alleviate its manpower shortage by appointing retiredDistrict Judges and members of the legal professionand academia to hear cases on an ad hoc basis.

OUR ORGANISTION

The Senior District Judge oversees all District Judges,Magistrates and staff of the Subordinate Courts. He isassisted by the Leadership Team which comprisesPrincipal District Judges, Group Managers, the Registrar,senior judicial officers and senior court administrators.The Senior District Judge has overall responsibility forthe daily management and administration of theSubordinate Courts and spearheads the formulationand execution of strategic policies.

There are three Justice Divisions in the Subordinate Courts:the Criminal Justice Division, the Civil Justice Division,and the Family and Juvenile Justice Division.

The newly-instituted Strategic Planning and TrainingDivision, overseen by a Senior Director, comprises the

14/15

Centre for Research, eNnovation and Statistics, theInformation Technology Department and the Researchand Resource Centre.

The Corporate Services Division, overseen by a SeniorDirector, provides support in matters such as humanresource management, infrastructure development andbuilding maintenance, corporate communicationsand finance.

The Leadership Team is supported by courtadministrators who provide essential paralegal supportand administrative services required by the operationalunits of the Subordinate Courts.

OUR PHILOSOPHY

It is the duty of the Subordinate Courts to providejustice to all people in Singapore according to thelaw, with fairness and integrity. This is coupled withan emphasis on ensuring that our processes areeasy to follow, serve as effective handmaidens of justice,and that our court services are accessible anduser-friendly.

Through annual Workplan Seminars which began in1992, the Subordinate Courts progressively implementedprogrammes and initiatives to reshape and improve theadministration of justice. While implementing theinitiatives for each year, we simultaneously take stockof new priorities, targets and directions for the comingyear. This strategic planning cycle ensures a continualsystem of renewal, allows new challenges to be swiftlymet and compels our organisation to look forward.

We seek to build the Subordinate Courts into an organisation withindividuals who have a shared vision and see the organisation as awhole, instead of a collection of unconnected parts.


LEARNING ORGANISATION

The Subordinate Courts strives to work as an integratedteam, building a Learning Organisation throughindividuals who learn. We seek to build the SubordinateCourts into an organisation with individuals who havea shared vision and see the organisation as a wholeinstead of a collection of unconnected parts. TheSubordinate Courts values every employee as individualsfor they deal with the day-to-day work of theorganisation, understand the problems that arise andare better able to solve these problems.

To this end, “Learning Organisation sessions”(or LO sessions) are held with judicial officers andcourt administrators to discuss ways of solvingvarious problems which the organisation faces.Dialogue sessions are also held by the Senior DistrictJudge with judicial officers and staff at all levels toobtain feedback and manage the expectations ofall concerned.

KAIZEN

The Japanese concept of Kaizen was introduced tothe Subordinate Courts to cut red tape and make ourworkplace more efficient, productive and lessbureaucratic. One recent example of Kaizen in actionwas the use of its principles in cutting down the bailprocessing time from one working day to one hour.

ORGANISATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

The Subordinate Courts is at the forefront ofimplementing organisational best practices, such asthe Justice Scorecard system.

The Subordinate Courts’ Justice Scorecard implementedin 1999. It is an innovative adaptation of the BalancedScorecard concept and is used as a tool in theperformance management of the courts. The JusticeScorecard translates the mission and strategies of theSubordinate Courts into operational goals that can bemeasured against a balanced set of perspectives. TheJustice Scorecard has since become a model for manyinterested organisations which have conducted studytrips to the Subordinate Courts to learn more aboutthe Scorecard’s philosophy and mechanics.

As a reflection of its organisational excellence, theSubordinate Courts has been accorded numerous awards,such as the National Association of Court Management(“NACM”) Justice Achievement Award 1999, PeopleDeveloper Standard, ISO 9000 for the FamilyTransformation and Protection Unit, ISO 9000 for theInformation Technology Department, Justice ServedAward 2001 and 2007, Defence Partner Award 2006,the Distinguished Public Service Award forOrganisational Excellence 2006 and the SingaporeQuality Award 2006.


16/17

Left to right (Back row)

Ms Denise Hng, Mr Lee Chun Yip, Ms Thaver Rebecca Katherine, Mr John Lee, Mr Lashman Singh,Mr Daniel Ang, Mr Joseph John, Ms Papinder Kaur, Ms Chan Wai Yin, Ms Anne DurrayLeft to right (Middle row)

District Judge Thian Yee Sze, District Judge Joyce Low, Senior Deputy Registrar Regina Ow,Senior Deputy Registrar Tan Boon Heng, District Judge Sarjit Singh, District Judge Sowaran Singh,District Judge Leslie Chew, District Judge Tan Peck Cheng, Ms Supaletchumi SuppiahLeft to right (Front row)

District Judge Ng Peng Hong, Principal District Judge Khoo Oon Soo, Senior District Judge Tan Siong Thye,Principal District Judge Liew Thiam Leng, Registrar Hoo Sheau PengNot present

Mr Glenfield De Souza, Mr SB Balachandrer, Mr Zakaria bin Ismail

LEADERSHIPTEAM

“The therapeutic and restorative justicepractices of the Community Court foroffenders aged 16 to 18 can be valuable tothose below 21. This will also enable theCommunity Court to intervene and addressissues of underlying disabilities or mentaldisorders appropriately in the youngoffender’s life.”




18/19

CRIMINAL JUSTICEDIVISION


CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION– COMMERCIAL CRIMES, INTELLECTUALPROPERTY OFFENCES ANDIMMIGRATION-RELATED OFFENCES



20/21

Left to right

District Judge Eugene TeoDistrict Judge Ch’ng Lye BengDistrict Judge Thian Yee SzeDistrict Judge Chia Wee Kiat (Co-Group Manager)Principal District Judge Liew Thiam Leng (Group Manager)District Judge Toh Yung Cheong

Not present

District Judge Jasvender Kaur


The criminal justice system in Singapore is foundedon three cardinal principles: the supremacy of theRule of Law, equality before the law and the protectionof the public. Observance of these principles leadsto public trust and confidence in the administrationof criminal justice.

The Subordinate Courts deals with more than 99% ofall criminal cases in Singapore. The primary goalsof the criminal courts are to ensure that those accusedof crimes are dealt with fairly, justly and withoutdelay, to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent,to impose appropriate punishment upon those foundguilty and, where possible, discourage furtheroffending. These goals are to be achieved aseconomically, efficiently and effectively as possible.

STRUCTURE OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL COURTS

The criminal trial courts are divided into specialisedoffence clusters. Cluster specialisation enables thebuilding up of a core of specialist judges who areable to provide closely-reasoned judicial considerationsand sentencing principles which are both offenceand offender-specific. Specialisation also promotesconsistency in sentencing.

The criminal trial clusters are divided into thefollowing groups:

Group 1 : Commercial Crimes, Intellectual PropertyOffences and Immigration-related Offences

Group 2 : Public Order and Community Court MattersGroup 3 : Crimes Against Persons and Drug Offences

Group 4 : Property Offences and Employment-relatedOffences

In addition, we also have mentions courts andspecialist courts such as the Coroner’s Court andthe Traffic Court.

BAIL COURT AND BAIL CENTRE

The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance ofthe accused to stand trial for the offence with which hehas been charged. The Bail Court reviews applicationsfor bail to ensure that bail amounts offered are notpunitive in nature. It seeks to ensure that the right balanceis struck between ensuring the liberty of the accusedpending trial or appeal and securing his attendancein court.

Bail processing for persons in remand is streamlinedby the use of video-linked facilities, which allows theperson to be bailed out from prison without the needto be brought to the Subordinate Courts, thus savingtime and resources, as well as minimising security risksas remanded accused need not be transported betweenthe court and the prison.

COMMUNITY COURT

The Community Court, which was set up in 2006,adopts a problem-solving approach that combinescriminal justice and community resources for acomprehensive response to cases which involve issuesthat are close to the heart of the community. In 2008,the ambit of the Community Court expanded to dealwith all cases of shop theft. In particular, the Community

The criminal justice system in Singapore is founded on three cardinalprinciples: the supremacy of the Rule of Law, equality before the lawand the protection of the public.


22/23

Court sought to formulate appropriate methods ofdealing with all such offenders.

SENTENCING STEERING COMMITTEE

A new sentencing steering committee with an enhancedremit of overseeing all matters pertaining to sentencingin the Subordinate Courts was set up. The committeeembarked on a systematic review of existing sentencingpractice to ensure that it keeps pace with social changeand developments in the law. In particular, thecommittee reviewed the existing sentencing guidelinesfor Penal Code offences in view of the new Penal Codewhich came into force on 1 February 2008.

CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND POLICY GROUP

The Criminal Practice and Policy Group comprises thePrincipal District Judge, Group Managers and a cross-section of judicial officers from the Criminal JusticeDivision. The group issues guidance to judicial officerson matters relating to criminal law, evidence andprocedure. For example, the group offers its views onhow certain statutory provisions are to be interpretedin the absence of a decision from the High Court orCourt of Appeal.

CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION

The Criminal Justice Division also conducts regularin-house seminars to keep judicial officers up to datewith the latest developments in the law and sentencingpractice. These also included dialogue sessions withstakeholders in the finance sector, such as the MonetaryAuthority of Singapore, the Singapore Exchange andthe Association of Banks in Singapore.


Left to right

District Judge Roy Neighbour, District Judge May Mesenas, District Judge Ng Peng Hong (Group Manager),District Judge Soh Tze Bian

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION– PUBLIC ORDER ANDCOMMUNITY COURT MATTERS


24/25

Left to right

District Judge Adrian Soon, District Judge Jill Tan, District Judge Francis Remedios,District Judge James Leong (Group Mananger), District Judge Jeffrey Sim, District Judge Hamidah bte Ibrahim,District Judge Wong Choon Ning

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION– CRIMES AGAINST PERSONSAND DRUG OFFENCES

Left to right

District Judge Jasbender Kaur, District Judge Sarjit Singh (Group Manager), District Judge Eddy Tham, District Judge Lee Poh ChooNot present

District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam


CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION– PROPERTY ANDEMPLOYMENT-RELATED OFFENCES


26/27

Left to right

District Judge Terence Chua, District Judge Salina bte Ishak, District Judge Shaiffudin bin Saruwan,Principal District Judge Liew Thiam Leng (Group Manager), District Judge Victor Yeo, District Judge John Ng

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION– CRIMINAL SPECIALIST/MENTIONS COURTS

Left to right

Mrs Mok-Goh Kit Soon, Ms Tan Ee Nin, Ms Supaletchumi Suppiah, Ms Anne DurrayNot present

Mr Pandiyan Vellasami

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION– SENIOR DIRECTOR (LEGAL) ANDSENIOR OFFICERS



28/29

BAIL CENTRE

Left to right

Ms Puvana d/o RamasamyMs Annhanim bte Mohamed(Malay Interpreter)

Mrs Renuka Thanabalan(Indian Interpreter)

Ms Lalitha NairMr Koh Hock Leong

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION– PUBLIC ORDER ANDCOMMUNITY COURT

Left to right

Ms Nurhafidzah bte Mohamed Kamal(Case Manager)

Dr Joseph Ozawa(Senior Consultant Psychologist)

Ms Mary Doris Gnanaraj(Indian Interpreter)

“People who seek redress from theSubordinate Courts must be assured thatthey will be accorded a fair hearing in courteven if the outcome may not be in theirfavour. Every man and woman who comesto the Subordinate Courts must have theconfidence that there is due process of thelaw, both in form and in substance.”


Message From the SeniorDistrict Judge Tan Siong Thye


30/31

CIVIL JUSTICEDIVISION

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION– CIVIL TRIAL COURTS



32/33

Left to right

District Judge Tan May TeeDistrict Judge Joseph YeoDistrict Judge Leslie Chew (Group Manager)District Judge Kathryn Low

Not present

District Judge Loo Ngan Chor

CIVIL TRIAL COURTS

“Effective and fair dispute resolution” – these wordsform the cornerstone of the work of the Civil JusticeDivision of the Subordinate Courts. Effectiveadministration of civil justice requires that each andevery case that comes into our courts is dealt withexpeditiously. Fair administration of civil justiceseeks to secure an outcome for each dispute that is inaccordance with the Rule of Law both in form and insubstance. In order to be seen as being effective and fairto all litigants, the process and product of our civil justicemust have a foundation of individuals in the justicemachinery who are fully committed to standards ofexcellence. Over the years, through a series of systematicand deliberate reforms, we have achieved high standardsin our civil justice system and processes.

To ensure that standards are not only maintained butenhanced, the Civil Justice Division in 2008 sought toaugment the knowledge and capabilities of our judgesand, through the active support of the Law Society ofSingapore, improve and enhance the professional skillsof the advocates who appear in our courts.

Our judges trained in judge craft by attending coursesin the United Kingdom, as well as short attachmentsin the UK courts and in Australia. There theybenefitted from observing proceedings and interacting

with experienced judicial officers in similar but moremature justice systems.

In partnership with the Law Society, an inauguralCivil Practice Week was organised from 28 July to1 August 2008. This consisted of a series of programmesheld within our court precincts which had the objectiveof enhancing the skills in advocacy and court craft ofour civil litigators. Highlights of the Civil PracticeWeek included talks by two eminent Senior Counsel,Mr Philip Jeyaretnam S.C., a former president of theLaw Society and Professor Jeffrey Pinsler S.C., anacclaimed expert in civil procedure. Mr Jeyaretnamshared his thoughts and insights on various aspects ofadvocacy and court craft whilst Professor Pinslerexpounded on ethics and the professional responsibilityof the advocate as an officer of the court, an integralcomponent of the administration of justice.

Another significant feature of the Civil Practice Weekwas the participation of four senior civil litigationpractitioners (Mr Lok Vi Ming S.C., Mr AbrahamVergis, Mr Peter Low and Mr George Lim) who werenominated to sit in with judges in the civil trial courtsto observe first hand their fellow members of the Bardischarging their duties to the court and to their clients.They were requested to specifically note the areas ofpunctuality, decorum, attire, standard of preparedness


“Effective and fair dispute resolution” – these words form thecornerstone of the work of the Civil Justice Division of theSubordinate Courts.


34/35

practitioners demonstrates that the judiciary and theBar share an equal commitment in the quest to providequality justice in Singapore.

The Civil Trial Courts look forward to future projectsto enhance the standards of administration and deliveryof civil justice in Singapore.

and legal knowledge of the advocates in action. Atthe end of the Civil Practice Week, these seniorpractitioners were asked to share their observations andgive their views.

The attendance by members of the Bar and the livelydialogue that followed both the talks by senior counseland the feedback session from the four senior

Civil Practice Week – Talk by Mr Philip Jeyaretnam S.C.

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION– THE REGISTRY



36/37

Left to right (Standing)

Magistrate Carrie ChanMagistrate Karolyn GinMagistrate Sandra LooiSenior Deputy Registrar Tan Boon HengRegistrar Hoo Sheau PengDistrict Judge Ronald GweeDistrict Judge Christopher GohDistrict Judge Shobha Nair

Left to right (Seated)

District Judge Wong PeckDistrict Judge Miranda YeoDistrict Judge Earnest LauDistrict Judge Ong Chin RhuDistrict Judge May Loh

Not present

District Judge Carol LingDistrict Judge Lynette Yap


more regular dialogue sessions, the Registry aims toanticipate and resolve issues which may arise and takeon new initiatives to achieve effective and fair disputeresolution.

PRIMARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE

Since 1994, mediation of civil cases filed in theSubordinate Courts is carried out through CourtDispute Resolution (“CDR”). CDR is conducted byDistrict Judges in the chambers of the PDRC. PDRCworked on a number of initiatives in 2008 to createmore opportunities for parties to resolve their disputesthrough mediation and to enhance the quality ofmediation provided at PDRC.

CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES

FOR RESOLUTION THROUGH MEDIATION

PDRC initiated a scheme in September 2008 togetherwith the Registry where parties involved in low valueclaims ($10,000 and below) and long trials (five daysor longer) are encouraged at the Summons-for-Directions stage to refer their dispute to CDR formediation. The focus is on these categories of claims asthe costs of proceeding for trial for such claims are morelikely to be disproportionate to the claim amounts. Aresolution at CDR will often be more cost effectiveand less time consuming than proceeding to trial.

PDRC worked with the Criminal Justice Division,Civil Trial Courts and the Registry on a pilot projectto concurrently manage Personal Injury MotorAccident cases where the defendant has pleaded guiltyto a charge of causing death by a rash or negligent act

REGISTRY

The Registry performs various roles integral to thejustice process in the Subordinate Courts. DeputyRegistrars hear interlocutory matters and give directionsto ensure that cases are ready for trial. Taxation andassessment of damages hearings are also conducted. TheRegistry manages civil cases in an integrated mannerfrom commencement to resolution at trial or at thePrimary Dispute Resolution Centre (“PDRC”). TheRegistry also manages Magistrates’ Complaints, CriminalMediation and the Night Court summonses issued byvarious government departments. With an increasinglydemanding public, the judges and staff of the Registryare committed to continously enhancing the quality ofjustice delivered through improving its policies, processesand people.

In order to maximise the benefits of mediation, theRegistry introduced a Financial Industry DisputeResolution Centre (“FIDReC”) pre-action protocol forlow-value non-injury motor accident claims. Thisfacilitates early resolution of such disputes by FIDReCbefore any civil action is filed in court. In order to savetime, an expedited writ track was introduced to deal withMagistrate’s Court claims for fixed sums of $20,000or below. Under the expedited writ track, the courtnotifies the parties to attend an early pre-trial conferenceand makes such orders or gives such directions for thejust, expeditious and economical disposal of the matter.

The Registry continues to increase communication andconsultation with our stakeholders, to solicit feedback,foster collaboration and strengthen support. Through

With an increasingly demanding public, the judges and staff of theRegistry are committed to continously enhancing the quality of justicedelivered through improving its policies, processes and people.


38/39

Left to right

District Judge Laura Lau, District Judge Joyce Low, District Judge Lim Wee MingNot present

District Judge Rahim Jalil, District Judge Francis Tseng

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION– PRIMARY DISPUTERESOLUTION CENTRE


PDRC worked on a number of initiatives in 2008 to create moreopportunities for parties to resolve their disputes through mediationand to enhance the quality of mediation provided at PDRC.

under section 304A of the Penal Code (Cap. 224).The aim is to streamline the resolution of such caseswhere the facts are largely not in dispute to facilitateearly recovery.

A new workflow was initiated to fast-track such casesfor mediation. A Personal Injuries Damages Guide toaid in settlement of disputes on the quantum of damagesfor such cases was also drafted.

IMPROVING OUR EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Many motor accident CDR cases are conducted throughJustice On-Line (“JOL”), which allows law firms tocarry out CDR through video-conferencing. This savestime as they can participate in the CDR session in theiroffice without having to come to court. In 2008, PDRCenhanced its JOL capability by increasing the numberof JOL stations. PDRC is also working with its serviceprovider to improve the system to allow for multi-partyvideo-conferencing.

ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF MEDIATION

In a move to further enhance the quality of mediationin the Subordinate Courts, PDRC conducted acomprehensive internal review of all court AlternativeDispute Resolution (“ADR”) processes. Pursuantto the review’s recommendations, PDRC is in theprocess of developing a Code of Best Practices forCourt ADR in the Subordinate Courts. The Codewill focus on ethics and practice and provide mediation

guidelines to our judges and mediators throughoutthe Subordinate Courts.

The District Judges at PDRC continue to updatetheir mediation skills by attending training courses,seminars and conferences both locally and overseas.Judges from other jurisdictions are also keen to learnfrom our experience in court-based mediation. Theyvisited our courts to observe our CDR sessions andattended presentations by our judges on PDRCand CDR. These visits also provide an opportunityfor us to learn how mediation is carried out inother jurisdictions.

PDRC continues to work with judges from otherjurisdictions, co-mediating through the video-conferencing Court Dispute Resolution Internationalprogramme. In 2008, PDRC co-mediated with judgesfrom Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.Co-mediation provides an additional perspective forthe parties and a mutual learning opportunity for thejudges involved to sharpen their mediation skills.

PDRC is exploring the possibility of having aprogramme where it would carry out co-mediationwith established mediators and academics. In thisregard, PDRC established contact with the SingaporeMediation Centre and the National University ofSingapore Law Faculty, and looks forward toimplementing this programme in 2009.


40/41

Left to right

Mrs Anne Saramma Mathew, Mr Glenfield De Souza, Ms Anne Durray, Ms Yong Khai LingNot present

Ms Nornahar bte Abdul Rahman

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION– SENIOR DIRECTOR (LEGAL)AND SENIOR OFFICERS


PRIMARY DISPUTERESOLUTION CENTRE– REGISTRY OFFICERS

Left to right

Ms Krystal TanMr Leow Tze HauMs Norjahan AmooMs Bharathi d/o AyyanarappanMs Napisah Beevi bte Abdul Gani

SMALL CLAIMSTRIBUNALS– REGISTRY OFFICERS

Left to right

Mr Abdul Rashid bin SuedMs Carmen SeahMs Tan Hui YingMs Masnah bte Sebeni


42/43

Left to right

Mr Krishna R Sharma, Ms Catherine Yong, Mr James Chuah, Mr Joseph John, Mr Tham Yeong ShinNot present

Mr Lim Ann Ming

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION– SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS

“The best interest and welfare of thechild have always been the Family Court’sparamount consideration in care proceedings.The Court’s obligation to treat the welfareof the child as the paramount considerationshould not be diminished by treatingcustody and care and control issues asif they were no more than a contest betweenthe parents. We need to recognise thespecial nature of children’s needs.”




44/45

FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE DIVISION

FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE DIVISION– TRIAL COURT JUDGES



46/47

Left to right

District Judge Edgar FooSenior Deputy Registrar Regina OwDistrict Judge Emily WilfredPrincipal District Judge Khoo Oon SooDistrict Judge Tan Peck Cheng (Group Manager)District Judge Jocelyn OngDistrict Judge Doris Lai

Not present

District Judge Sowaran Singh (Co-Group Manager)District Judge Jen KohDistrict Judge Wong Li Tein

The Family and Juvenile Justice Division provides aholistic approach to resolving family disputes. Asidefrom adjudicating on family legal disputes, the Familyand Juvenile Justice Division has a further role: toprotect family obligations so that family ties andresponsibilities are strengthened and preserved, andthat the physical and psychological welfare of all familymembers is protected.

2008 was productive and challenging for the Familyand Juvenile Justice Division, as innovative andlandmark projects and initiatives were put into placeto give effect to the philosophy of the courts.

FAMILY COURT

CHILD PROGRAMME

In the keynote address delivered at the 17th SubordinateCourts Workplan on 9 May 2008, The Honourablethe Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong discussed “the specialnature of children’s needs”. Chief Justice Chan gaveclear strategic directions in managing proceedingsrelating to children, “to move the judicial process inthe Family Court away from the current confrontationalmodel to one that will focus on the best interest of thechild. This will be a paradigm shift in the way issuesconcerning the welfare of children are determined bythe courts.”

To this end, we launched a pilot programme for a lessadversarial model for dealing with child custody disputesknown as the CHildren’s Best Interest, Less ADversarial(“CHILD”) Programme in May 2008. The CHILDProgramme is designed to reduce the acrimony caused

by the filing of affidavits in the course of litigationbetween the parties over children’s issues, which inturn exacerbates the conflict by perpetuating cycles ofconfrontational counter-accusations about the otherparent in the parties’ respective affidavits.

This programme involves the creation of a specialisedCHILD Court configured to give parties direct accessto the judge during hearings, as well as attendantwork processes designed to move proceedings towarda less adversarial and more therapeutic direction.A Family Counsellor also meets parties beforeproceedings and is present during the actual hearing.The Counsellor assists the court and the parties inarriving at optimal parenting arrangements that givethe highest priority to the child’s best interests, ratherthan to the often conflicting and contradictory wishesof the parents.

Much work was done in the course of the year, includingthe publication of essential information concerningthe programme in brochures and on the website ofthe Subordinate Courts for the benefit of court users,the Family Bar as well as the general public. FamilyCourt judges and counsellors were trained to handleCHILD proceedings through several study trips andattachments to the Family Court of Australia as wellas the Family Court of Western Australia. Staff alsofamiliarised themselves with the new processes by wayof in-house training sessions. A video was producedby the Family Court with the active participation andcollaboration of the Law Society of Singapore. Thisvideo will be an invaluable tool in increasing the


...the Family and Juvenile Justice Division has a further role: toprotect family obligations so that family ties and responsibilities arestrengthened and preserved, and that the physical and psychologicalwelfare of all family members is protected.


FAMILY PRACTICE WEEK

From 28 July to 1 August 2008, the SubordinateCourts, in partnership with the Law Society, hostedthe inaugural Family Practice Week. This involveda series of programmes held at the SubordinateCourts complex which focused on enhancingprofessional legal skills in family litigation advocacyand court craft.

48/49

familiarity of lawyers as well as eliciting the interest ofcourt users in all aspects of the CHILD Court processes.

Of the several cases identified by the Deputy Registrarsfor the pilot phase of the CHILD Programme, one casewent through the complete process including the FirstDay and Final Hearing stages. Another case was settledthrough the efforts of the CHILD Judge.

CHILD Court proceedings video production

Left to right

Deputy Registrar Lim Keng Yeow, Deputy Registrar Marvin Bay, Deputy Registrar Carol Yeo,Deputy Registrar Janis Woon, Deputy Registrar Carolyn WooNot present

Deputy Registrar Kevin Ng


FAMILY AND JUVENILE JUSTICEDIVISION – DEPUTY REGISTRARS


The key feature of the Family Practice Week was thenomination of senior lawyers to sit in with judges in theFamily Court to observe fellow members of the Bardischarging their duties to the court and clients, especiallyin the areas of punctuality, decorum, attire, standardof preparedness and legal knowledge. Members of theBar were assured that the lawyer-observers had undertakento the Subordinate Courts to keep all informationreceived at the sit-ins as confidential. The four seniorfamily lawyers who participated in this inaugural FamilyPractice Week were Ms Engelin Teh S.C., Ms Foo SiewFong, Ms Loh Wai Mooi and Mr Yap Teong Liang.

In addition to observing court proceedings, the lawyer-observers participated actively in the closing PanelDiscussion, which gave them the opportunity to share

their observations and experiences with fellow membersof the Bar. Ideas and issues close to the hearts of thejudiciary and practitioners were raised and discussedextensively, and the session ended with a commitmentto continue to work together towards improvingprofessional legal skills.

TRAINING SESSIONS BY AUSTRALIAN JUDGES

The success of the courts in Australia in implementinga less adversarial trial approach in child-related disputesis widely recognised. In order to better understand thissuccessful implementation, the Family Court hostedJustice Stephen O’Ryan of the Family Court of Australiafrom 26 February to 1 March 2008 for a trainingprogramme on the Less Adversarial Trials and the ChildResponsive Programme that is in operation in Australia.

50/51

Training session by Justice Stephen O’Ryan of the Family Court of Australia

STAYING ENGAGED WITH THE COMMUNITY

The Family Court also has regular feedback sessionswith the Family Law Practice Committee to betterunderstand their concerns with practice issues, and tocommunicate new initiatives to them. The FamilyCourt also played a critical role during the course ofthe year by providing appropriate input to the relevantagencies on proposed key legislative changes.

JUVENILE COURT

The Juvenile Court not only deals with juvenileoffenders, but also protects children and young personsbrought before it for Child Protection Orders.

THE CHILDREN CARE COURT

The Children Care Court was established on 15 May


The Family Court was also honoured to be able to invitethe Honourable Justice Stephen Thackray, Chief Judgeof the Family Court of Western Australia to providetraining from 5 to 9 March 2008 to the Family Courton the Less Adversarial Trials and the Child RelatedProceedings Programme in place in Western Australia.

Each of the training programmes culminated in asession and discussion that was specially arrangedby the Family Court for members of the Family Bar.These final sessions proved to be particularly rewardingand enriching experiences as members of the FamilyBar could hear first hand from these esteemedjudges on their experiences with the less adversarialapproach. The opportunity to come together to learnwas invaluable.

Training session by the Honourable Justice Stephen Thackray, Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia


2008 to give special attention to Beyond ParentalControl (“BPC”) and Care and Protection Order(“CPO”) cases for children and young persons belowthe age of 16 years.

Focusing on the best interests of the child, the ChildrenCare Court harnesses community resources to meetspecific needs of the child. The court works with theMinistry of Community Development, Youth andSports (“MCYS”) Probation Services, Child ProtectionServices and the Psychological Unit (“PSU”), theSingapore Children Society (“SCS”), the SingaporePolice Force, the Child Guidance Clinic (“CGC”) ofthe Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) and the Panelof Advisers appointed by the President.

Assisting the judge is a team of officers from the Familyand Juvenile Justice Centre (“FJJC”) comprising socialworkers, psychologists and counsellors. These officersprovide independent input which includes forensic andother risk assessments. Their vital contribution providesa wider multi-disciplinary perspective to the issue athand and further strengthens the court’s decision makingand problem-solving processes.

In addition, the FJJC officers serve as facilitators inChildren Care Court Conferences convened by thecourt. These Conferences involve the parents and othersignificant individuals involved in the care of thechildren as well as representatives from relevant agencies.Through such Conferences, underlying causes of familydysfunction or juvenile misbehaviour are addressed

and win-win solutions are arrived at that producelong-term positive outcomes.

The Children Care Court advocates processes whichbetter engage all parties, encourage collaborationbetween them which strengthen family relationshipsand promote therapeutic justice. To this end, whereverpossible, open court hearings are conducted with lessformality, sometimes with the judge sitting closer toand at the same level as the parties.

FAMILY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTRE

DIVORCE INFORMATION SESSION @THE FAMILY COURT

In October 2008, the FJJC implemented the pilotphase of the Divorce Information Session @ The FamilyCourt to provide the public at large with pertinentinformation relating to separation and divorce.

The Divorce Information Session was a free 1-hourlunch time presentation set up to provide an avenuefor the public to understand the relevant court processes,as well as to highlight the often unnoticed negativeimpact that separation and divorce has on children.

Four fortnightly sessions were piloted in Octoberand November 2008. Each session attracted anaverage of 18 participants who attended after havingnotice of it through brochures or recommendationsfrom Family Service Centres, family and friends. Partieswho attended the sessions indicated they foundthem beneficial.

52/53

FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE DIVISION –JUVENILE COURT OFFICERS

Left to right

Ms Norleha bte Mohamed HassanMs Yam Mei YingMr Ahmad Zaharan bin Mohamed Din


FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE DIVISION –REGISTRY OFFICERS


Mr Mohd Fazil bin Abdul RazakMs Rosalind TanMs Tan Hui RongMs Agnes GohMs Patricia Png


Ms Warni PutehMs Mahani Adam


54/55

FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE CENTRE


Ms Ngoh Heng YeeMs Sophia AngMs Audrey Lum


Mr Ho Yew WaiMr Ronald Lim

FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE CENTRE

Left to right

Ms Sarinah bte MohamedDr Joseph OzawaMs Cynthia TeoMr Samuel Chua

Not present

Ms Goh Soo ChengMs Nur Izzah bte AmirMs Annie Lee

“Good court services are crucial. Themessage to our court users must be thatour people have the passion, desire andcommitment to excel in whatever we do,and that the Subordinate Courts is also acompassionate organisation where justiceis administered and delivered efficientlyand fairly.”




56/57

CORPORATESERVICES DIVISION

CORPORATE SERVICESDIVISION – FINANCESECTION

Left to right

Ms Phua Thong LengMrs Theresa LewMr John LeeMr T. Balasubramaniam

CORPORATE SERVICESDIVISION

CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

The Corporate Services Division provides supportin matters such as human resource management,infrastructure development and building maintenance,corporate communications and finance.

On each business day, thousands of visitors walk throughthe Subordinate Courts. As part of on-going efforts toenhance accessibility to court services within a safe andsecure environment, several improvements were madeor initiated in 2008. For example, work began towardsthe end of 2008 to construct a new Information Counterthat began operating in early 2009. With this newInformation Counter, members of the public are ableto obtain information on various court services.Additional security measures and security audits ensurea secure environment for court users. Projects in the

pipeline include building a sheltered walkway linkingthe courts’ premises to nearby buildings.

To optimise resources and increase operational efficiency,processes and work spaces were further streamlinedand reconfigured. The Family Transformation andProtection Unit (“FTPU”) was relocated to the first levelof the building to consolidate space and better servecourt users.

The Corporate Communications Section continues towork towards enhancing public awareness, understandingand appreciation of the Subordinate Courts’ role inensuring that justice is fairly administered. Towards thisend, the section facilitated and engaged the media,utilising opportunities offered by the new media.Pamphlets and publications outlining the various court


58/59

facilities, procedures and programmes were producedand made readily available to court users. The sectionalso coordinated visitor programmes for numerousgroups of visitors during the year, both local and fromaround the world.

The Finance Section worked with the Ministry of Finance(“MOF”) to enable the centralisation of transactionalactivities at MOF on payments, claims processing andrefund of cash bail. This was done after a review foundthat it was more efficient for our officers to preparethe monthly reconciliation for cash bail transactions.

The section also worked on converting payment-through-court divorce orders into a direct payment system.Under the payment-through-court system, in line withthe bank’s processing time and MOF’s procedures,payees receive their monthly maintenance allowancewithin two weeks. Converting to a direct payment systemenables payees to receive their monthly maintenanceallowance more quickly (immediately if the paymentis by ATM fund transfer or cash payment at the bankbranch, or within three working days if paid by cheque).

In the area of human resource management, trainingand continuing education continued to receive emphasis.To ensure a quality Bench, scholarships were awarded

to our judges. District Judge Toh Han Li was awardedthe Legal Service Commission Scholarship so he couldundertake the Masters in Public Management (“MPM”)Programme at the Lee Kuan Yew School of PublicPolicy, National University of Singapore.

In addition, District Judge Chia Wee Kiat and MsPapinder Kaur (Director, Human ResourceManagement) attended the Senior Executive in Stateand Local Government programme at Harvard’sKennedy School of Government.

To enrich and broaden staff welfare, the WelfareCommittee assembled a series of social, cultural, sports,health and other activities. In 2008, the followingevents were organised: Judiciary Recreation Club Familyand Sports Day, Annual Dinner and Dance, Movie Nite,lunchtime movies, informational circulars on healthmatters, Health Bazaar and the Heartstring Walk.

Judges and staff celebrated National Day on 22 August2008 with a pre-event carnival sale and on-line auction.The event raised a sum of $13,910, which we presentedto the Children’s Cancer Foundation, the SubordinateCourts’ adopted charity. The Subordinate Courts’National Day Observance Ceremony was held on thesame day, with the presentation of various awards.

CORPORATE SERVICESDIVISION

The award winners in 2008 were as follows:

NATIONAL DAY AWARDS

Public Administration Medal (Gold)Principal District Judge Khoo Oon Soo

Commendation MedalMrs Lee-See Fong Pheng

Efficiency MedalMr Muhamad Nezam bin Zakaria

Long Service Medal (25 years of service):District Judge Lee-Khoo Poh ChooMr Pandiyan s/o VellasamiMr Wong Hee HuangMs Padma d/o VengadasalamMr Mohamed Salim bin Mohamed Kasim

SUBORDINATE COURTS’ AWARDS

Court Administrator of Year 2008 AwardMs Aw Theng ThengMs Noor Aini bte ZumzuriMs Rozita bte Mahmud

Subordinate Courts 10-year Service AwardMr Ronald Lim Teck SengMr Tham Yeong ShinMr Steven Chiang Joon HengMr Andrew Chew Thiam HinMr Loh Kee YongMs Zaleha Rahim RahmanMr Iskandar bin AbbasMs Rita AnthonyMs Arfah bte OmarMr Mohd Fazil bin Abdul RazakMs Zurianti bte MuhamadMs Norlita bte Sono


CORPORATE SERVICESDIVISION – HUMANRESOURCE MANAGEMENT


Ms Wahidah BanuMrs Yeow-Mak Yuek LingMs Lynn TohMs Clare TanMs R Thamayanthi


Ms Thaver Rebecca KatherineMs Papinder KaurMs Dalbir Kaur

CORPORATE SERVICESDIVISION –INFRASTRUCTUREDEVELOPMENT

Left to right

Ms Zheng GuifengMr Muhamad Nezam bin ZakariaMr Bernard SohMs Papinder KaurMs Seng Li LianMr Adrian Lai

Not present

Ms Angeline Kwah

60/61

“We cannot fight future battles with armiesprepared for the last war. The world aroundus is constantly changing and we mustmove along with these changes. If weremain static while the world outside theSubordinate Courts continues to evolve,we will eventually be drowned under thetsunami of change.”




62/63

STRATEGICPLANNING AND

TRAINING DIVISION

STRATEGIC PLANNINGAND TRAINING DIVISION

Left to right

District Judge Joseph Yeo, District Judge Thian Yee Sze



The Division will also chart and oversee the trainingroad map of all court administrators and other officersto build a forward-looking Subordinate Courts whichkeeps abreast of the developments in the social, politicaland economic landscape in which it serves.

The following three departments are within the purviewof the Division:

• Centre for Research, eNnovation and Statistics• Information Technology Department• Research and Resource Centre

CENTRE FOR RESEARCH, eNNOVATION

AND STATISTICS (“CReST”)

ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING ON JUDICIAL RANKING

CReST conducted various environmental scans onthe ratings and rankings of the Legal System andJudiciary by various international organisations. Theseinclude rankings by the Political and Economic RiskConsultancy Ltd, Institute of ManagementDevelopment, World Economic Forum, Fraser Institute,World Bank and the Heritage Foundation.

STATISTICAL REPORTS

CReST also produces several statistical reports which areuseful for the Subordinate Courts’ strategic planningand the management’s review of practices and policies.Statistics collated are reviewed to ensure relevanceand usefulness.

SURVEYS

Under the purview of CReST is also the implementation

The Strategic Planning and Training Division was setup on 1 October 2008.

The role of the Division is two-fold: to chart thestrategic thrust of the Subordinate Courts and toinstitutionalise the Subordinate Courts’ current trainingprogramme.

In respect of the Subordinate Courts’ strategic thrust,the Division will plan and propose processes andmechanisms that the Subordinate Courts should putin place to enable the organisation to respond andadapt to the challenges and opportunities arising outof changes in society, the economy and the nation.

At the same time, the Division intends to proactivelyuse the opportunities which these challenges bring todevelop a better administration of justice, as well as abetter workplace for judicial officers and administrators,and will work to ensure that the Subordinate Courtshas the flexibility and resources to deal with unexpectedsituations and contingencies.

As regards training, the Division seeks to ensure thatall judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts areinculcated with the necessary skills and tools to carryout their core responsibilities proficiently in themanagement and adjudication of cases. It intends toachieve this by institutionalising a judicial educationprogramme that focuses on building up the corecompetencies of our judicial officers, namely, benchskills, legal knowledge, social context education, judicialadministration, ethics and conduct.

64/65

of the Public Perception Survey of the Local Populationof the judiciary in Singapore. Another survey was alsoconducted in 2008 – the Survey of Litigants-in-Personat the Family & Juvenile Justice Division. This surveyobtained feedback from users on the quality of courtservices and access to justice.

RESEARCH

Several research studies were conducted by CReST in2008 and published in the Subordinate Courts ResearchBulletin. These studies include the study of cases at theCommunity Court, a profile study of children andyoung persons under care and protection orders andanother study on the profile of shop theft cases dealtwith by the Subordinate Courts. The findings of theseresearch studies were used in the formulation of variousnew initiatives of the Subordinate Courts.


The showcased technologies received very positive feedback fromthe court users and will be rolled out over the next few years underthe Subordinate Courts’ 4th IT Master Plan.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT (ITD)FOURTH IT MASTER PLAN

In early 2008, ITD embarked on the Fourth IT MasterPlan for the Subordinate Courts. The Fourth IT MasterPlan maps out, for the next five years, the strategic ITinitiatives for the Subordinate Courts and theinvestments to be made in IT.

Focus group discussions were conducted withmanagement and users from different divisions of theSubordinate Courts to identify areas where the use ofIT could be of significant assistance. The feedbackgathered was translated into proofs of conceptshowcased under the iCourtLab initiative.

iCOURTLAB

The third series of iCourtLab initiatives was launched

STRATEGIC PLANNINGAND TRAINING DIVISION– INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYDEPARTMENT

Left to right

Mr Poh Kheng ThongMs Catherine LamMr Ryan QuekMs Denise HngMr Cheng Kim YewMr Andrew CheeMs Regina OngMs Chia Wan Leng


66/67

in July 2008 and showcased a total of 12 technologies.The showcased technologies ranged from new documentimaging solutions that allowed automated conversionand filing of physical documents in electronic form, asuite of technologies that included electronic case filing,business intelligence and enterprise search which workedtogether to facilitate case research and judgment writing,and business process management solutions that wouldallow IT systems to be more agile and flexible so as tokeep pace with changes in processes.

The showcased technologies received very positivefeedback from the court users and will be rolled outover the next few years.

SCRIMS IIThe Singapore Case Recording and InformationManagement System II or SCRIMS II, is a casemanagement system that tracks criminal and juvenilecases from registration to disposal.

Development of the core modules of SCRIMS IIwas completed. The integration of SCRIMS II withexternal agencies to facilitate the exchange of electronicdata will commence upon the successful rollout ofSCRIMS II in the first quarter of 2009. The immediatefocus will be to integrate SCRIMS II with the casemanagement systems of the Singapore Police Force toautomate the case registration process and with thePrisons Department to speed up the transfer ofsentencing information. In future, the electronicinterfaces could be extended to other prosecuting

agencies, thereby paving the way for an integratedcriminal justice system.

KIDSNET

KIDSNet is an educational website intended to provideassistance to children in distressed situations, forexample, those whose parents are undergoing a divorceor those who witness family violence.

Spearheaded by the Family and Juvenile JusticeDivision, the content of KIDSNet is crafted to be easilyunderstood by children from primary to secondary levels.Multimedia and interactive content are included tomake the learning more fun and engaging for children.

The first phase, which is targeted at educating childrenat the primary school level on how to deal with theirparents’ divorce, was ready in January 2009. The secondphase, which covers all the rest of KIDSNet, will beready in mid-2009.

IT DISASTER RECOVERY

The first phase of the Subordinate Courts’ DisasterRecovery plan was to enable the organisation to resumecritical functions even if the computer centre at theHavelock campus was inaccessible. The setting up andconnection of the Disaster Recovery site at Science Parkto both the Family Court network and to the Havelockbuilding network was completed in November 2008.This will enable critical applications to be run fromthe Disaster Recovery site. The Disaster Recovery exercisehas been completed and the next phase of the Disaster


Recovery plan, which is to enable the resumption ofcritical functions where the entire Subordinate Courtscomplex is inaccessible, is being studied.

RESEARCH AND RESOURCE CENTRE (“RRC”)

SENTENCING INFORMATION SYSTEM (“SIS”)

In meeting the information and research needs of thejudicial officers, in June 2008, the RRC subscribed tothe SIS developed by the Judicial Commission of NewSouth Wales.

The SIS, a subset of The Judicial Information ResearchSystem (“JIRS”), is an online source of primary,secondary and statistical reference material. It containscase law, legislation, principles of sentencing, sentencingstatistics and other information.

Although the SIS is based on legislation and caselawof New South Wales, many of the sentencing principlesare still relevant and applicable to Singapore and ourjudicial officers can learn and benefit from them.

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE

The RRC has been assisting the Criminal JusticeDivision in preparing a comprehensive database ofall Magistrate’s Appeals that have been filed after 2003,including those which have lapsed, been withdrawnor heard. This database is to allow judicial officers easy

access to all Magistrate’s Appeals for in-depth researchinto sentencing matters. The database containsinformation such as:

a. sentences imposed at trial and on appeal (if any);b. scanned copies of Grounds of Decisions by both

the trial judge and High Court (where available);c. scanned copies of newspaper reports of the appeal

hearing (where available and if the Grounds ofDecision are not released by the High Court);

d. scanned copies of minutes or notes recorded by theappellate court (where available); and

e. scanned copies of skeletal arguments filed inMagistrate’s Appeals.

COMPARATIVE LAW RESEARCH DATABASE

By leveraging on enterprise search engine capabilities,this project aims to provide judicial officers with acustomised tool for searching local and comparativejurisdictions for relevant case law and statutoryreferences, thereby shortening the time needed toconduct legal research.

The RRC was involved in the initial phase of the aboveproject by identifying and collating the online resourcesof various jurisdictions, namely the United Kingdom,Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada, theUnited States of Amercia and South Africa.


68/69

STRATEGIC PLANNINGAND TRAINING DIVISION– RESEARCH ANDRESOURCE CENTRE

Left to right

Ms Rubiah bte JaharahMs Rozilah bte RohaniMs Nooraeni bte AhmadMs Rosyati bte AhmadMs Siti Fatimah bte Abdul SatarMs Puah Lian Gek

STRATEGIC PLANNINGAND TRAINING DIVISION– RESEARCH,eNNOVATION ANDSTATISTICS (CReST)

Left to right

Ms Seah Sock TiangMs Sherrie LimMs Harpreet KaurMs Chan Wai YinMs Kamaliah d/o ChinthamatharMs Huang CaiweiMs Shen Qinghui

A TRIBUTE TOFORMER SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGERICHARD MAGNUS


SDJ Magnus served the Subordinate Courts with honour anddistinction, transforming the Subordinate Courts into an efficientand effective institution.

70/71

Senior District Judge Richard Magnus steppeddown on 28 August 2008 after 40 years of publicservice, 16 years of which were at the helm of theSubordinate Courts.

SDJ Magnus served the Subordinate Courts withhonour and distinction, transforming the SubordinateCourts into an efficient and effective institution.Under the stewardship of SDJ Magnus and with theguidance of the former and present Chief Justices, theSubordinate Courts introduced various reforms andinitiatives. These reshaped and strengthened theSubordinate Courts and the administration of justice.Today, the Subordinate Courts is internationallyrecognised as an outstanding judicial and administrativereformer and innovator, and has been cited as a usefulmodel of modernisation for nations looking to improvetheir court system.

In the journey towards judicial excellence, theSubordinate Courts broke new ground and achievedmany “firsts”. Its innovations included the JusticeScorecard, the introduction of a virtual court wherean offender could plead guilty by electronic means,court-based mediation in civil and family processes,pre-trial conferences for criminal cases and statusevaluation sessions for family cases. In tandem withthese measures, workplans were introduced which setexplicit markers for desired results. In 2006, theSubordinate Courts attained the Singapore QualityAward for organisational excellence.

Internationally, SDJ Magnus forged many strategicalliances and links with forward-looking foreignjudiciaries and international organisations. These effortshave not only provided the impetus necessary forcontinuous innovation and improvement, but have alsostrengthened the standing of the Subordinate Courtsinternationally.

He initiated the Asia Pacific Courts’ Conference in1995 and in 2007 initiated an international projecttowards the development of a global Framework forCourt Excellence. The latter led to the formation of theConsortium for Court Excellence, which comprises theUS National Centre for State Courts, the US FederalJudicial Centre, the Australasian Institute of JudicialAdministration, the Singapore Subordinate Courts andSPRING Singapore. The Consortium is assisted byexperts from the Council of Europe and the World Bank.

SDJ Magnus also laid the foundation for theSubordinate Courts’ judicial education programmes.These programmes have strengthened and deepenedthe skills and knowledge of judicial officers in theSubordinate Courts.

He has also presided over family, civil and criminalcases. In 2004, he chaired an Independent Committeeof Inquiry that carried out a public inquiry into thecause of the incident at the MRT Circle Line worksitethat led to the collapse of the Nicoll Highway and thedeaths of four workers.

His 40 years in public legal service included time withthe Industrial Arbitration Court, the then-Registry ofTrade Marks and Patents and the Ministry of DefenceLegal Services Department.

In recognition of his sterling contributions to the nation,SDJ Magnus was conferred the Public AdministrationMedal (Silver) in 1983, the Public AdministrationMedal (Gold) in 1994 and the Public AdministrationMedal (Gold) (Bar) in 2003.

Apart from his legal and judicial duties, SDJ Magnushas also been active in various other capacities. He wasformerly a director in several government-linkedcompanies. He also served as Member of the SeniorPersonnel Board of the Singapore Legal Service. Hewas also active in several committees of the SingaporeAcademy of Law. He chaired the Millennium LawConference’s Steering Committee in April 2000, atwhich then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew was theKeynote Speaker.

On 2 April 2008, he was appointed Chairman ofthe new Casino Regulatory Authority. He wasappointed a Board Member of the Land TransportAuthority effective 1 September 2008. He is alsonow a member of the Public Service Commission,Chairman of the Public Guardian Board, the PartyPolitical Films Panel and the Human Stem Cell andChimera Research Sub-Committee of the BioethicsAdvisory Board.

On 8 August 2008, the judicial officers and staff ofthe Subordinate Courts gathered together to pay tributeto SDJ Magnus for his many years of dedicatedleadership and outstanding public legal service.

SDJ Magnus leaves behind a legacy of distinction inthe administration of justice. He has provided not onlyleadership to the Subordinate Courts during his tenureas the Senior District Judge, but has retired with theinstitution of the courts collectively stronger and betterthan what it was at the beginning of his tenure.

In recognition of his sterling contributions to the nation, SDJ Magnuswas conferred the Public Administration Medal (Silver) in 1983, thePublic Administration Medal (Gold) in 1994 and the Public AdministrationMedal (Gold) (Bar) in 2003.

A TRIBUTE TO THE SENIORDISTRICT JUDGE


72/73

PP v Nur Rizan bte Mohd Sazali, MuhdIz’aan bin Sazali & Elsa Elyana bte SaidDAC 11492/2008 and others[2008] SGDC 283CALIBRATED IMPRISONMENT TERMS FORMAID ABUSERS IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLDThe three accused persons lived in the samehousehold and abused the Indonesian domesticmaid working therein for alleged infractions suchas stealing from them, lying and failing to seekpermission to bathe.

The offences which they were charged withincluded punching the maid, hitting her with acane, pouring boiling wax on her and extractingher two front teeth. The maid suffered from varioushorrific injuries including her lost front teeth, aninfected scab over her scalp, scald wounds on herback and lacerations on various parts of her body.

The District Judge noted that while all the accusedpersons lived in the same household and were inall probability emboldened by each others’ acts,they should not be tarred with the same brush.The sentence imposed on each had to be calibratedto be commensurate with his or her personalculpability and offences.

Nur Rizan pleaded guilty to two charges – onefor pouring boiling wax onto the maid’s head,and one for forcibly extracting two of her front

teeth from her gums. Three other charges weretaken into consideration for the purpose ofsentencing. In sentencing her, the District Judgenoted that these were acts of appalling crueltyon a domestic maid. She was sentenced to a totalof 26 months’ imprisonment.

Iz’aan pleaded guilty to one charge for voluntarilycausing hurt to the maid, by using a cane to hither legs. One further charge for wrongfullyrestraining her was taken into consideration forthe purpose of sentencing. The District Judgenoted that this was wholly demeaning and crueltreatment of another human being, and sentencedhim to six weeks’ imprisonment.

Elsa pleaded guilty to two charges – for punchingthe maid on both sides of her face and for aidingNur Rizan to pull out the maid’s teeth by holdingthe maid’s mouth open. One further charge wastaken into consideration for the purpose ofsentencing. The District Judge noted that theact of cruelty in the second charge wasunprecedented in its perversity. The total sentenceimposed was 17 months’ imprisonment.

None of the accused persons appealed againsttheir sentences. The prosecution filed an appealagainst Iz’aan’s sentence, but withdrew the appealafter the District Judge’s Grounds of Decisionwere released.

SIGNIFICANTCASES IN 2008CRIMINAL JUSTICEDIVISION


74/75

PP v Zhao Zhipeng [2008] 4 SLR 879IMPRISONMENT TERM IMPOSED ONFOOTBALLER WHO THREW MATCHES

The accused was a professional footballer who playedfor the Liaoning Guangyuan Football Club (“LGFC”)in the S.League. LGFC was effectively controlled byits manager Wang Xin, who was the team coach withthe mandate to select and sack players. Wang placedbets on S.League matches and enlisted the help ofhis team’s players to ensure that the desired outcomesof the matches were achieved. Wang approached theaccused on three occasions, each time before a matchbetween LGFC and another club, and instructedthe accused not to play to the best of his ability suchthat LGFC would lose by a certain number of goals.The accused followed Wang’s instructions and wasgiven a reward of $2,000 on two occasions. Theaccused was arrested before he could receive a rewardon the third occasion. He pleaded guilty to a chargeunder section 6(a) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct (Cap. 241), with two other charges taken intoconsideration. The accused was sentenced to sevenmonths’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a penaltyof $4,000 by the District Court.

Hearing the accused’s appeal against his sentence,the Chief Justice reviewed a number of sentencingprecedents from the Subordinate Courts andobserved that they demonstrate the courts’ keensensitivity to the relative culpability of match-fixingoffenders in imposing sentences that have beenfinely calibrated to reflect the offenders’ roles in thematch-fixing and what they stood to gain.

However, the Chief Justice recognised that inthe present case, Wang had used his position overthe accused to exert pressure and this had affectedthe accused’s capacity for independent action.He expressed confidence that as a result ofthis case, the Football Association of Singaporewould have taken, or would be taking, steps tostrengthen its supervisory structure so as to reducethe opportunities for managers and players,particularly foreign ones, to corrupt the S.League.In the circumstances, the accused’s sentence wasreduced to five months’ imprisonment with thepenalty intact.

PP v Tang Wee Sung, DAC 31037-31038/2008DISTRICT JUDGE TEMPERS JUSTICEWITH MERCY

The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of enteringinto an arrangement involving the supply of a kidneyfor valuable consideration under section 14(2)read with section 14(1) of the Human OrganTransplant Act (Cap. 131A) and to a charge ofmaking a false statutory declaration before aCommissioner of Oaths under section 14(1)(a)(ii)of the Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap. 211).A third charge was taken into consideration for thepurpose of sentencing.

The accused was in ill health and needed a kidneytransplant. He entered into an arrangement, wherebyhe paid one Wang Chin Sing approximatelyS$300,000 to source for a donor who was willingto donate his kidney to the accused for a fee.Subsequently, one Sulaiman Damanik (“Sulaiman”),an Indonesian who was not related to the accused,agreed to donate his kidney for 150 million rupiah(about S$23,700). Sulaiman flew to Singaporeand underwent various medical tests and other

SIGNIFICANT CASESIN 2008

CRIMINALJUSTICE DIVISION

procedures preparatory to the proposed kidneytransplant operation. The accused was introducedto Sulaiman and they both attended at the TransplantEthics Committee (“TEC”) interview. At thisinterview, the accused provided false informationto the TEC panel, which approved the applicationfor a live kidney transplant based on the falseinformation given.

The accused then made a false statutory declarationbefore a Commissioner for Oaths, declaring thathe had agreed to participate as a living donor in akidney transplant surgical operation and confirmedhis decision to receive the kidney and tissuefrom Sulaiman gratis. The accused also falselydeclared that his niece’s brother-in-law marriedSulaiman’s aunt.

The District Judge, while recognising that the natureand circumstances of the offences called for acustodial sentence, took into account the accused’sextreme ill health and stated that he would onlyimpose a very short custodial sentence. The accusedwas sentenced to one day’s imprisonment and a totalfine of $17,000.


76/77

PP v Satpal Kaur Narula, AVA 110010/07COMMUNITY COURT’S PROACTIVE APPROACHRESULTS IN AMICABLE CLOSURE

The accused pleaded guilty to six counts of failingto leash and muzzle her three Rottweiler dogs in apublic place, which are offences under rule 9(2)(a)of the Animals and Birds (Dog Licensing andControl) Rules 2007. Four other charges concerningher remaining two Rottweiler dogs were taken intoconsideration for the purposes of sentencing.

The accused’s Rottweiler and its four 18-month-old offspring had dashed out of the accused’s houseand set upon a Jack Russell which was passing bywith its owner. The Jack Russell was badly injured,while its owner suffered some injuries after fallingwhile trying to protect his pet.

Prior to sentencing, the Community Court conveneda Comunity Court Conference (“CCC”), where

parties met to discuss the issue of compensation andapology. The accused agreed to pay compensationfor an undisclosed sum to the owner of the JackRussell, of which a portion would be donated tothe Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The accused was eventually sentenced to a total fineof $6,000.

The Community Court’s proactive approach in theCCC showed that the court’s sole purpose is notjust to mete out punishment but to also ensure thatsuch an incident would not happen in future. Thecourt’s initiative in facilitating the mediation sessionavoided a potential civil suit and also gave the accusedthe opportunity to apologise to the owner of theJack Russell, thereby resulting in an amicable closurefor all parties concerned.


Awyong Shi Peng & Awyong Shi Hong vLim Siu Lay [2008] SGDC 280COURT WILL NOT ASSIST GAMINGTHE SYSTEM

Mr Awyong Kah Lock (“AYKL”) was made abankrupt on 26 July 2002. The plaintiffs were AYKL’stwin sons, Shi Peng and Shi Hong. On 28 November2001, eight months before AYKL was made abankrupt, AYKL gave the sum of $200,000 to hisbrother-in-law, the defendant, with instructions thatthe defendant pay $100,000 each to Shi Peng andShi Hong on 15 August 2003 when they turned 21years of age. The defendant agreed and signed amemorandum in respect of each sum evidencing this.

The next day, on 29 November 2001, AYKL leftSingapore, purportedly for his overseas businesscommitments. However, he never returned toSingapore. After he was made a bankrupt, a warrantof arrest was issued against him in the bankruptcyproceedings.


Shortly after the plaintiffs reached the age of 21years in August 2003, they went to see their uncle,the defendant, to claim the sum of $200,000. Thedefendant raised the defence of illegality, that thetransaction was a scheme devised by AYKL to defeathis creditors.

The District Judge held that the transaction was ascheme devised by AYKL to defeat his creditors.The transaction was at an undervalue under section98 of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap. 20) and was illegalunder section 138. The District Judge was of theview that to allow the transaction to be completedby giving judgment in favour of the plaintiffs wouldonly encourage other potential bankrupts to devisesuch schemes that would wrongfully bestow a giftto the benefit of their relatives at the expense oftheir creditors. There was no reason for the courtto assist a bankrupt in completing a transactiondesigned to defraud his creditors. The plaintiffs’claims were thus dismissed.


XD (An Infant, suing By His Next Friend, B)v Hong Kah Town Council & SembwasteCleantech Pte Ltd [2008] SGDC 96COURT HOLDS THAT, AS NO RELIABLEEVIDENCE, NO CASE TO ANSWER

On 6 December 2001, XD, then five and a halfyears old, was found at the loading/unloading bayof an HDB carpark with one of his legs pinnedunder a heavy metal frame (with wheels) which hadtoppled. When the accident was discovered, onlyXD’s elder brother, then about 10 years old, waswith him. The two children were not supervised bytheir parents at the time of the accident. Their father,B, was then at work and their mother was at home.According to the statement of claim, moments beforethe accident, XD had been playing at a playground.He subsequently left the playground to retrieve aball that had landed at the loading/unloading bayof a nearby carpark. At the loading/unloading bay,XD noticed that the ball had become lodged in ametal frame. This metal frame had been left thereby the Town Council and/or their contractor to beused as a “garbage trolley”, the loading/unloadingbay being in the vicinity of a garbage bin centre.When XD attempted to retrieve the ball, the metalframe toppled on him, fracturing his thigh bone.XD claimed that the Town Council or theircontractors had been negligent as they had left theinherently unstable metal frame unattended at theloading/unloading bay which was a public place

78/79

under their management and control. They had alsofailed to take any effective measures to ensure thatthe metal frame was secured as the loading/unloadingbay was on sloping ground and had failed to giveadequate warning of the inherent danger posed bythe metal frame. XD and his brother were not calledas witnesses. Instead, evidence was adduced fromXD’s father and a resident who was alerted by thecries of the children, both of whom did not witnessthe accident. At the close of the XD’s case, thedefendants submitted that they had no case to answer.

The District Judge held that XD had failed toadduce any evidence to substantiate his claims as tothe circumstances and cause of the accident. Hearsayevidence from the father and neighbour could notbe accepted. Photographs taken by the father of themetal frame did not show that the metal frame couldbe toppled easily. The photographs in fact indicatedthat the metal frame had a broad base, was of aregular shape and was not tall when measured againstthe height of a typical adult. There was no reliableevidence that the loading/unloading bay was onsloping ground and also no evidence that the metalframe was under the control and management ofthe Town Council. Accordingly, the District Judgefound that the Town Council had no case to answerand dismissed XD’s claim. XD did not proceed withhis appeal to the High Court after the grounds ofdecision were delivered by the District Judge.


XU v XV [2008] SGDC 220COURT FINDS THAT DUTY OF CARE SHOULDNOT IMPOSE UNNECESSARY BURDEN

The plaintiff was at the material time employed asa Business Development Manager by the defendants.

On or about 1 August 2007, while on assignmenton the defendants’ business overseas, the plaintiff wasraped by a business associate of the defendants. Sheclaimed that the rape was a breach of the contractof employment by the defendants by “sending,assigning of all duties relating to work includingoverseas assignment and by failing to take allnecessary steps to safeguard her well-being as thecrime of rape having been committed by a businessassociate of the defendants was a danger which wasknown to the defendants and/or a danger which thedefendant knew, or ought to have known about, inthe given circumstances”.

The plaintiff also based her action on the defendants’“breach of duty of care in allowing the plaintiff tobe placed in such a vulnerable position as to sufferthe assault… in the course of her duties for thedefendants.” The defendants applied to strike outthe plaintiff ’s claim on the grounds that it disclosedno reasonable cause of action, was frivolous, vexatiousand/or an abuse of process of the court. The actionwas struck out by a Deputy Registrar and the plaintiffappealed to the District Judge in chambers.

The District Judge affirmed the Deputy Registrar’sdecision. He held that the plaintiff’s claim based on the


defendants’ breach of an implied term to take necessarysteps to safeguard the plaintiff in sending her to workon an assignment overseas was unsustainable. Whileit is reasonable to imply into the contract a termgenerally that the defendants, as the plaintiff ’semployers, would be required to ensure a safe workingenvironment, he could not find such an implied termextended to providing a safe environment during hertravel assignments overseas.

The District Judge also held that the plaintiff ’saction in negligence was plainly unsustainable andwould be an abuse of process. Although it is the dutyof the employer to the employee to provide a safeplace of work, it is not one of strict liability. Measuredagainst what would be expected of a reasonablyprudent employer, he found that the defendants inassigning the plaintiff to travel to Taiwan had takenadequately reasonable steps to ensure the plaintiffwas not exposed to an unsafe “place of work” and toa “system of work” that was dangerous or unsafe.

Alternatively, he also confirmed the striking out ofthe action on the basis that there was no duty of careon the part of the defendants. He found that policyconsiderations required that the law ought to limitthe employer’s duty of care to situations which didnot encompass the present circumstances. There wouldbe an unnecessary burden placed on employers whoregularly send their employees outside Singapore toconduct business on their behalf. The plaintiff ’sappeal to the High Court against the District Judge’sdecision is still pending.


80/81

at best, get a paper judgment. On their part, theplaintiffs had in their possession the machine whichwas lying in storage (and incurring storage charges).

With the assistance of the CDR judge, the plaintiffsrecognised that a possible solution lay in procuringa new lessee for the machine so that it could continueto generate income. In this connection, the defendantswould assist in procuring a new lease from acompany recommended by one of their directors.The question of personal guarantees for the newlease agreement was resolved when the plaintiffsacknowledged that the new lessee was an existingcustomer with good credit standing. After thedefendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs a contributiontowards their costs the settlement was concluded.The plaintiffs had the benefit of income from anew lease; the defendants obtained a practical andsatisfactory resolution to one of the many claimsthey had to deal with.

CDR JUDGE FACILITATES PRACTICALSOLUTION THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEENACHIEVED THROUGH LITIGATIONThe defendants rented from the plaintiffs a machineat a rental fee of $15,000 payable by 60 installments.When the defendants defaulted on the rental, theplaintiffs recovered the machine. Pursuant to theterms of the rental agreement, the plaintiffs broughtan action for rental fees payable for the balance ofthe “minimum period” amounting to about $15,000or alternatively, damages. The defendants contendedthat the contractual provision requiring payment ofrental fees for the balance of the “minimum period”in the event of breach was a penalty and thus voidand unenforceable.

At CDR, the defendants’ counsel alluded to theunenforceability of the penalty provision. It alsotranspired that the defendants had no money, wereindebted to several creditors and the plaintiffs would

The Subordinate Courts places a premium on thetraining and continuing judicial education of its judicialofficers. To this end, judicial officers were sent on variousattachment programmes and courses in Australia andthe United Kingdom to expose them to the workingsof courts in and the practices of those jurisdictions.

Judicial officers visited the Royal Courts of Justice, theCentral London County Courts, the Willesden CountyCourts and the Blackfriars Crown Court in London,England, as well as the District Court of New SouthWales in Sydney, Australia. They also attended the CivilContinuation Course and Crown Court SentencingSeminar organised by the Judicial Studies Board of theUnited Kingdom, the Sentencing Conference 2008hosted by the National Judicial College of Australia

CONTINUINGJUDICIAL EDUCATION

(“NJCA”) and the Australian National University, andthe Phoenix Judges Programme organised by the NJCA.

These seminars allowed the judicial officers tobetter understand other jurisdictions’ approaches tocriminal sentencing and their civil practices, while thecourt attachments enabled the judicial officers toobserve senior judges and recorders at work. Thejudicial officers were also given the rare opportunityof sitting at the bench of a Crown Court with thepresiding judge to observe a day’s proceedings in thecourt, which included oral arguments on pre-trialapplications and a jury trial. The knowledge gainedfrom these experiences greatly enhanced the judicialofficers’ appreciation of judge craft and the importanceof a judge’s soft skills.

Sentencing Conference 2008 District Judge Jill Tan at the Blackfriars Crown Courtin London


82/83

The knowledge gained from these experiences greatly enhanced thejudicial officers’ appreciation of judge craft and the importance of ajudge’s soft skills.

Week-long visits by Lord Woolf of Barnes and SeniorMaster Steven Whitaker of the Royal Courts of Justiceto the Subordinate Courts were also immenselyenriching. Lord Woolf shared his expertise andknowledge on such diverse topics as judge craft,judgment writing, legal reasoning, reformation of civiljustice, development of sentencing jurisprudence andsentencing considerations in serious offences. SeniorMaster Whitaker shared his insights on civil procedure

and practice, and discussed the practical aspects ofhandling complex interlocutory applications.

Periodic refreshers conducted by external parties arealso held, such as the series of briefings by the variousgovernment agencies on the crime trends of the moreprevalent offences in Singapore. Judicial officers alsoconduct in-house lectures to keep other judicial officersupdated on developments in the law.

Training visit by Lord Woolf of Barnes Magistrate Sandra Looi at Phoenix Judges Programmeorganised by the NJCA

Training visit by Senior Master Steven Whitaker of the Royal Courts of Justice

NOTES OFAPPRECIATION

“I would like to thank you for helping us to reconcile through your very beneficial sessions.I sometimes wonder what would have happened had we not had you as our counsellor.... The lessons learned from your valuable session taught me to see things from a differentperspective. I can’t thank you enough and I will always remember you.”

– from a lady whose marriage had benefitted from a counsellingsession at the Family Court

“The Judge ... was very fair and nice. He did a great job in handling our case. I was so afraidthat he would dismiss my ramblings, my emotional outburst but he was really good andkind. Thank you.”

– from a user at the Family Court

“The two praiseworthy things about Singapore would be the excellent accomplishments ofits citizens and its sound and compassionate legal system – both in turn ensure and enhancesocial morality and social justice. Especially when such social morality and social justicehave manifested characteristics of prudence, honesty and warmth, making it a good examplewhich other developed and developing nations can emulate.”

– from a Chinese national who wrote a letter to the SeniorDistrict Judge, saying that this was what she told thosewho asked her what Singapore had to commend itself


84/85

“Blessings come in many guises and one of them is you, Your Honour. Thank youwhole-heartedly for your wisdom and for putting my life back in order.”

– from a thank-you card written to one of our District Judges

“I am sure the information you have providedwill be most useful for the IT people in the newCourt. Could you please convey my enormousthanks to all who were involved in providing theinformation. ... At the same time, can I thank youagain for the warmth and generosity of yourhospitality while Marguerite and I were inSingapore.”

– from Lord Woolf of Barnes

INTERNATIONAL RATINGSAND ACCOLADESINTRODUCTION

The Singapore Judiciary has consistently been placedin the top league of world judiciaries. In 2008, Singaporescored well in various surveys conducted by severalinternational and reputable organisations. The resultsof these surveys are a tribute to the high quality ofjustice dispensed by Singapore courts.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RISK CONSULTANCY

(“PERC”) – COMPARATIVE COUNTRY RISK AND ASIAN

INTELLIGENCE REPORT

PERC published the latest Asian Intelligence Report inSeptember 2008 which rated expatriates’ perceptions ofthe quality of Asia’s judicial systems. In 2008, Singaporewas again rated as having one of the top three judicialsystems in Asia, together with Hong Kong and Japan,in terms of quality and confidence in the judicial system.

The 2008 PERC Asian Intelligence Report reportedthat Singapore’s judicial system amassed greatconfidence in integrity of judges and in its quality.High esteem is also held for the system’s effective andconsistent rulings. This is why Singapore is in a strongposition as a commercial and business hub attracting

foreign investments and has consistently been rankedeither first or second over the past 13 years since 1996(Figure 1).

INSTITUTE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT (“IMD”)

– WORLD COMPETITIVENESS YEARBOOK

In May 2008, IMD analysed and ranked 55 countriesin the world on their ability to create and maintainthe competitiveness of enterprises. One assessmentcomponent was whether the legal and regulatoryframework encourages the competitiveness ofenterprises. Singapore’s ranking has been consistentlyhigh since 1997. In 2008, Singapore’s legal frameworkwas ranked first, followed by Hong Kong andDenmark, and the rating was one of the highest since2001 (Figure 2).

Another assessment component was whether justicehas been fairly administered. Singapore was the onlycountry in Asia ranked in the band of top 10 countriesor top 20% among 55 countries and the score of 8.60was the highest ever obtained since 1995. In terms ofratings, Singapore climbed from 11th place in 2007 to6th in 2008 (Figure 3).


Year Ranking of Singapore Rating (0 = Best ,10 = Worst)

1996 2 2.761997 2 2.721998 1 2.331999 1 3.182000 1 2.572001 1 3.282002 1 1.702003 1 1.382004 1 1.252005 2 1.752006 2 1.872007 2 1.882008 2 1.92

FIGURE 1: PERC – QUALITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 1996 – 20081

86/87

1. Compiled from the rankings by PERC in the Asian Intelligence Reports and/or the Comparative Country Risk Report for the relevant years.2. Compiled from the rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook for the relevant years.

FIGURE 2: IMD – RANKING OF SINGAPORE’S LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, 1997 – 20082

The legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises

Year Ranking of Singapore Rating No. of Countries Ranked(1 = Strongly Disagree,10 = Strongly Agree)

1997 1 8.46 461998 1 8.20 461999 1 8.64 472000 1 8.82 472001 6 8.03 492002 1 8.50 492003 1 8.22 532004 1 8.34 602005 2 7.52 602006 2 8.11 612007 1 8.65 552008 1 8.65 55

The Singapore Judiciary has consistently been placed in the topleague of world judiciaries.

INTERNATIONAL RATINGSAND ACCOLADES

WORLD BANK STUDY – DOING BUSINESS REPORT

The World Bank released its Doing Business Report2009 in September 2008. In this study, 181 economieswere ranked on the ease of doing business, based onvarious assessment variables, including contractenforcement. The ease of doing business index was anindication of whether the regulatory environment wasconducive to the operation of business. For the secondyear running, Singapore topped the ranking, followedby New Zealand, the United States and Hong Kong(Figure 4).

The contract enforcement variable measured theefficiency of the judicial system in resolving acommercial dispute, in terms of number of proceduresinvolved, time and cost. Singapore was the secondhighest rated Asian economy after Hong Kong andranked 14th globally.

Singapore has the second least number of proceduresinvolved for a lawsuit after Ireland; the duration toprocess a case in Singapore is also the shortest amongall the rated economies.

FIGURE 3: IMD – RANKING OF SINGAPORE’S JUSTICE SYSTEM, 1995 – 20083

Justice is fairly administered

Year Ranking of Singapore Rating No. of Countries Ranked(1 = Strongly Disagree,10 = Strongly Agree)

1995 9 7.91 481996 4 8.31 461997 14 7.64 461998 4 7.92 461999 7 8.54 472000 5 8.59 472001 14 7.73 492002 7 8.50 492003 6 8.49 532004 10 8.24 602005 15 7.71 602006 13 8.11 612007 11 8.12 552008 6 8.60 55

3. Compiled from the rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook for the relevant years.


88/89

WORLD BANK – GOVERNANCE MATTERS

INDICATORS

The Worldwide Governance Indicators project is aproject by the World Bank, and the latest results releasedin June 2008 reported the aggregate and individualgovernance indicators for 212 countries and territoriesover the period 1996-2007, for six dimensions ofgovernance:

• Voice and Accountability• Political Stability and Absence of Violence• Government Effectiveness• Regulatory Quality

• Rule of Law• Control of Corruption

In the latest report, Singapore once again scored wellunder the Rule of Law component, which measuresthe extent agents have confidence in and abide by therules of society, and in particular the quality of contractenforcement, the police and the courts, as well as thelikelihood of crime and violence.

Over the past six years under the Rule of Law indicator,Singapore was well-placed in the 90th percentile(Figure 5).

FIGURE 4: EASE OF DOING BUSINESS (TOP 15 COUNTRIES) – 2008 AND 20094

4. Compiled from the rankings published in the World Bank Doing Business Report for the relevant years.

Ranking 2008 2009

1 Singapore Singapore2 New Zealand New Zealand3 United States United States4 Hong Kong, China Hong Kong, China5 Denmark Denmark6 United Kingdom United Kingdom7 Ireland Ireland8 Canada Canada9 Norway Australia

10 Australia Norway11 Iceland Iceland12 Japan Japan13 Finland Thailand14 Sweden Finland15 Switzerland Georgia

LOCAL PUBLIC PERCEPTION SURVEY

Public trust and confidence is a core value in theadministration of justice because the administration ofjustice impacts the public at large. Feedback from thecommunity is vital in providing relevant performancebenchmarks for the courts’ strategic planning andpolicy development initiatives. It is therefore criticalto take soundings of the public’s perception of theadministration of justice through independent localpublic surveys.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Subordinate Courtscommissioned a private agency to conduct anindependent survey of public opinion on theadministration of justice in Singapore. It found that:

INTERNATIONAL RATINGSAND ACCOLADES

• 97% of the respondents have full confidence in thefair administration of justice;

• 98% of the respondents feel that the courtsadminister justice fairly to all regardless of actionsby or against individuals, companies or thegovernment; and

• 99% of the respondents feel that the courtsadminister justice fairly to all regardless of language,religion, race or social class; and

• 99% of the respondents feel that the courtsindependently carry out justice according to the law.

Rule of Law

Year Ranking of Singapore Score No. of Countries Ranked(Total 2.5 points)

2002 18 1.54 1972003 15 1.69 2022004 9 1.81 2092005 9 1.81 2092006 13 1.76 2112007 11 1.79 211

FIGURE 5: WORLD BANK – GOVERNANCE INDICATORS 2002 – 20075

5. This is a compilation of the rankings in the Governance Indicator Report for the relevant years.


90/91

CASELOAD PROFILE 2007 2008p

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISIONCriminal Mentions

Criminal Mentions Courts (1) 45,998 49,128Departmental/Statutory Board 155,888 136,225Traffic 33,527 38,444

Special CourtsCoroner 3,937 3,879

Magistrate’s ComplaintsRelational Disputes 3,716 4,087Non-relational Disputes 2,106 2,743

OthersTown Council 14,829 14,068

260,001 248,574

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISIONOriginating Processes Writs of Summons (DC & MC) 32,724 38,596

Originating Summons 502 539Probate 3,269 3,527

Interlocutory ApplicationsSummons-in-Chambers (2) 9,652 9,102Summons for Directions (O.25/37) 4,427 5,407Summary Judgment (O.14) 608 688

OthersTaxation 142 123Assessment of Damages 1,254 1,357

52,578 59,339

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALSNo. of Claims Filed 15,610 14,500

FAMILY JUSTICE DIVISIONMaintenance

Fresh 1,718 1,686Enforcement 3,450 3,266Variation/Rescission/Suspension 1,195 1,104

Family ViolenceFresh PPO 2,554 2,547Variation/Rescission of PPO 139 132Breach of PPO 50 62

CASELOAD

CASELOAD PROFILE 2007 2008p

FAMILY JUSTICE DIVISION CONTINUED

DivorceDivorce Writ 5,937 6,328Ancillary Matters 2,171 2,192

OthersAdoption 416 407Originating Summons 174 161Breach of Syariah Court Orders 726 730Enforcement of Parental Maintenance 68 67Breach of Counselling Orders 67 70

18,665 18,752

JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISIONJuvenile Arrest (3) 1,714 1,438Beyond Parental Control 150 125Child Protection Orders 113 78Police Summons/Summons & Tickets/Others 176 157

2,153 1,798

Total 349,007 342,963p - Preliminary Figures

Notes:-(1) Includes DAC, MAC, PSS, PS & other charges(2) Excludes O.25/37(3) Refers to charges

DISPOSAL RATES FOR 2008

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

83% disposed of within 6 months


85% received final orders within 18 months

93% received interim orders within 18 months



CriminalCharges

CivilCases

DivorceCases

JuvenileCharges

Small ClaimsTribunals

CASELOAD

CASELOAD


Acknowledgements

THE EDITORIAL COMMITTEEDISTRICT JUDGE THIAN YEE SZEDISTRICT JUDGE JILL TANDISTRICT JUDGE TERENCE CHUAMR SB BALACHANDRERMS SARAH LIM

IN CONSULTATION WITHSENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE TAN SIONG THYEREGISTRAR HOO SHEAU PENG

WITH WARMEST APPRECIATION TOAll who have contributed to the publication.

A RAINDANCE DESIGN & PRODUCTION

Subordinate Courts

No 1 Havelock SquareSingapore 059724Tel (65) 1800-JUSTICE/5878423www.subcourts.gov.sg

enhancing the public value of justice · reputation for innovation and efficiency in court...

Documents