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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SINGAPORE: Four men were charged on Wednesday (25 September), with one count each of causing public nuisance and using abusive language against a police officer following an incident at a crime scene in Little India.

The scene was cordoned off by law enforcement as they investigated an alleged murder.

The incident, which took place around 5:10 a.m. on 22 September, was captured in a nearly two-minute video that was uploaded to the Facebook page ROADS.sg, garnering over 434,000 views.

The men charged are Md Din, 32o Marciano Abdul Wahab, 44; Alex Kumar Gnansekaran, 37; Mohamed Eusof Mohamed Yahiya, 32; and Mohanan V Balakrishnan.

Court documents indicated that they shouted at police officers, using phrases such as, “You talked like a gangster you know, we all scared you know”, “we are paying tax, we are paying our f***ing tax” and “I can show you 100 per cent gangster”.

Observing the video, the individuals appear to be arguing with two police officers about the absence of officers stationed at the road entrance to direct pedestrians to an alternative route while the police ordered them to leave the scene.

As one individual accused the officer of acting like a “gangster,” he encouraged his friend to record their altercation. The man can later be heard telling the officer, “If you want to show gangsterism, this is Singapore; it’s not gangsterism for you.”

The altercation took place in a back lane on Sam Leong Road, near the site where a 25-year-old man was allegedly murdered.

The alleged perpetrator, Muhammad Sajid Saleem, 22, was charged with the murder on Monday, alongside five other individuals related to the incident.

Notably, the four men charged on Wednesday are not connected to the murder case.

In court, the men expressed their intention to seek legal representation.

The police prosecutor noted that investigations are ongoing and that additional charges could be forthcoming.

According to a police press release, the four men approached the cordoned-off area and were advised to take an alternative route.

Despite this, three of the men allegedly taunted the officers and used abusive language, while the fourth recorded the interactions on his mobile phone.

The police stated that officers exercised restraint and attempted to de-escalate the situation amid the ongoing murder investigation.

The group only used the alternative route after significant persuasion from law enforcement.

The police emphasised that they would not hesitate to take action against individuals obstructing public servants in their duties or using abusive behavior towards officers.

Under the law, those found guilty of using abusive language against a public servant could face up to a year in jail, a fine of up to S$5,000, or both.

Offenders of public nuisance can be sentenced to up to three months in jail, a fine of up to S$2,000, or both.

The four men are scheduled to return to court on 8 October.