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 claimedChee 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 chambersBefore 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 Registrar’s 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 RobertsonÂ’s 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 RegistrarÂ’s 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
