Tim Robertson,Senior Counsel from NSW and representing
FEER,
applied to attend the hearing not in a capacity as counsel
but was denied.Therefore,he decribed SG's courtroom like
hell.
But did he lie to gain familiar support from the west?
As a SC,he should know the differences between open court
and chamber .But he claimed ''I was denied entry to the courtroom
''
which give the impression that he was denied to open court!!
What a good lawyer!
In fact ,he was denied to a chamber which ''it is a matter for the
discretion of the court as to whether anyone other than counsel may
attend such hearings.''
1.What Tim
Robertson claimed
Chee Soon Juan was unavailable for comment. However, his
Australia-based lawyer, Tim Robertson, said that "I have not the
slightest doubt that Singapore will use the occasion of the IBA
conference as evidence of worldwide approval of its system of
justice, it already claims that independent groups rate its courts
as the best in the world."
Just last week Robertson was denied the chance to represent the Far
Eastern Economic Review in a defamation suit filed by Lee Hsien
Loong and Lee Kuan Yew. In response, he said in an email: "I was
denied entry to the courtroom on an entirely spurious ground. The
proceedings took place in secret. It is an outrage that a case that
had important implications for the development of international law
and involved the PM and his father as litigants should have been
held in secret. It is worse that entry to the courtroom in
Singapore now depends on the court's opinion as to the political
views of the entrant. That is political censorship."
--http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleiba3.html
2.Preliminary
point application to allow foreign counsel to attend the hearing
in chambers
Before the hearing of the appeals actually commenced, the
appellants requested permission for Mr Tim Robertson, SC from New
South Wales, Australia to be allowed to attend the hearing of the
appeal, which (as is the norm for Registrars Appeals) was
conducted in chambers. Hearings in chambers are considered private
and it is a matter for the discretion of the court as to whether
anyone other than counsel may attend such hearings.
Counsel for the appellants, Mr Peter Low, urged that Mr Robertson
be allowed to attend the hearing. According to Mr Low, Mr Robertson
had been retained by the appellants from the onset of the
proceedings and acted as their lead legal advisor. Mr Low further
submitted that he himself had been instructed as Singapore counsel
for the appellants by Mr Robertson.
The respondents counsel, Mr Davinder Singh SC, opposed the
application. Among the arguments made, Mr Singh drew attention to
an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 November
2005, in which Mr Robertson was quoted as characterizing
Singapore as an authoritarian regime and remarking that the
present Singapore is controlled by the Government, as is the
judiciary, and so in cases which have a political element in them,
the odds are stacked well and truly against the opponents of the
regime.
The court held that the fact that the request to be permitted to
attend the hearing was being made on behalf of someone who had made
openly disrespectful remarks about the judiciary was a relevant
factor in deciding whether it should exercise its discretion in
favour of that person. At the same time, the court was anxious to
ensure that the appellants were not prejudiced by reason of the
misconceptions of their legal advisor.
The reasons advanced by the appellants were that Mr Robertson
wanted to see for himself how the proceedings were conducted and
how the arguments were presented. Further it was submitted that
allowing Mr Robertson to attend the hearing would help clear any
misconceptions about the judiciary in Singapore.
The request was not made on the basis that Mr Low needed Mr
Robertsons assistance in conducting the appeals. Mr Low in fact
expressly stated that this was not so.
The court, having considered the reasons advanced by the appellants
and the fact that there would be no prejudice to the appellants if
Mr Robertson were not permitted to attend the hearings since they
were ably represented by Singapore counsel, and further having
considered the interest of the court in upholding its dignity and
authority, denied the request for Mr Robertson to be allowed to
attend the hearing. (See [10]-[17] of the Judgment).
---21 February 2007
Media Summary
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Company Limited & Anor and
another suit Registrars Appeals No. 328 and 329 of 2006
Decision of the High Court (by Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh
Menon)
--http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/default.aspx?pgid=1721&printFriendly=true
