ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS IN THE 1990s

• Citation: (1990) 2 SAcLJ 209
• Author: E C FOENANDER
• Date: 01 December 1990
• Published date: 01 December 1990

The Subordinate Courts: pre-1975:

In the early 1960’s the Subordinate judiciary was accommodated in scattered and, partly, in somewhat “ancient” court-house premises dispersed in separate locations at South Bridge Road, Empress Place, Sepoy Lines and Outram Road. At these several locations — comprising around 15 courts in all — matters concerning criminal, civil, traffic and coroners cases were respectively dealt with. The volume in caseload then at each of these locations was not such as to be unmanageable. However, the widely dispersed locations of the respective courts and registries made for inconvenience to the public in general when required to attend in any of the cases dealt with there. There was also the uneconomical use of its available resources in the duplication of supporting administrative staff required for each location, and occasionally wastage in the less than optimum use of court-room space and judicial time because of the dispersed locations.

Then, in the late 1960s, and early 1970s, with varied new legislation enacted to deal, for example, with cleanliness of the environment, enforcement of the Enlistment Act, and other demands of a rapidly developing modern society, new offences were inevitably created and fresh litigous matters arose which invariably led to increases in the caseload of the Courts. The Court calendar, in the South Bridge Road Courts, in particular, was seriously affected to the extent that it became necessary to take certain measures to prevent unnecessary delays in the trials of pending cases. The object of the measures taken was to dispose of as many cases as possible while affording parties dates as early as was practicable. To some extent the object was achieved while keeping the Court calendar, at least in appearance, within a reasonable time-frame. It was, however, eventually realised that it was not a practicable scheme, in the long run, as it invariably resulted in inconvenience to those involved in some of the cases that could not be proceeded with, although scheduled for trial. In the meanwhile, the facilities to deal with and dispose of this increase in the caseload remained unchanged.

Shortage of Facilities Noted

The shortage in the facilities did not, however, go unnoticed. As far back as 1970, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Wee Chong Jin, had then observed the growing problems brought about by the modernising of Singapore that would soon affect the Courts and warned that,

“If we, who are connected with the administration of justice, in the new decade that is now with us where the time factor is so important, are to keep in step with the times, we must find ways and means to deal with our work more expeditiously. ……………………………………………………………”

(vide: Opening of the Legal Year, 1970: MLJ, January 1970, page vi)

This acute and prevailing awareness to keep pace not only with the rapid growth in the country’s economy — begun in previous years through industrialisation, sophisticated financing and service institutions — but also to meet developments brought about subsequently by inflation and recession that was now affecting the world, and the realisation for the need for new and enlarged facilities for the subordinate judiciary to meet the anticipated problems that would face the courts, were the principal factors that moved the Chief Justice to bring about in the years that followed the eventual construction of a new enlarged complex of Court rooms with a central registry and supporting facilities at a site bordered by Havelock Road and Upper Cross Street. Eventually, in 1975, in his address at the Opening of the Legal Year then, he was able to announce, while noting the already increasing criminal prosecutions and civil litigation that the Courts faced and stressing the need to deal with these “as efficiently and expeditiously as possible”, as follows,

“Fortunately, towards the later part of the year it is expected that the new Subordinate Courts building in Havelock Road will be completed.

Then, for the first time, under one roof and in a central location, will be housed all the subordinate courts, civil and criminal, with all the supporting administrative departments.

A great deal of planning, thought and attention to detail, apart from expense, has been given to ensure that in the new building the business of the subordinate courts can be conducted in ideal conditions for everyone, be he a litigant, an accused person, a witness, prosecutor, an advocate or a judge. I am confident that when the Courts function in this new building they will, ………….. be able to cope with and dispose of expeditiously — but always according to law — the ever increasing volume of cases which will come before them.” (vide: MLJ, February, 1975, page xx).

1975 — The new Subordinate Courts

The completion of the present Subordinate Courts Complex at Havelock Road/Upper Cross Street in 1975, with 26 Courts under one roof, provided the opportunity for a streamlining of the efforts of the subordinate judiciary to optimum use in its role in the administration of justice. All matters, civil and criminal, requiring adjudication in one way or another by

the Courts within their respective jurisdictions, including matters under the jurisdictions of the Coroner’s Court and the Juvenile and Maintenance Court, could now be dealt with at one location. One immediate objective thereby achieved was the convenience accorded to the general public in being able to transact and conclude legal matters requiring adjudication within this one central complex, as compared to previous years when the subordinate courts were dispersed over four separate locations.

Another long awaited objective achieved concerned the use of the resources within the complement available at the disposal of the subordinate courts for the running and administration of the entire complex which, because of its central location, could now be better planned and utilised. It was now possible, for example, to efficiently deploy and use to optimum effect the staff resources available. Each of the hearing Courts was given a mixed schedule of cases, both civil and criminal, to handle. With this exposure to a wider variety of cases judicial officers gained in experience and knowledge and could now be assigned without difficulty or delay to any of the courts that became available, for whatever reason. Other administrative staff could also be redeployed where similar circumstances warranted it. A central Registry now also served all the Courts so that any duplication of staff resources as was unavoidable previously no longer arose.

A system was also implemented whereby selected courts were assigned the duties and functions of Mentions Courts. The aim of this system was to carefully coordinate the flow of criminal cases and fresh civil actions to available Courts for hearing. One of these Courts (Court No. 26) dealt with all fresh arrest and Police summons cases as well as traffic cases that were brought to Court for the first time. Cases could be disposed of in this Court where an accused pleaded guilty to the charge/charges against him. Where he pleaded ‘not guilty’ this Court would assign him a date and a venue for his trial. For this purpose, this Court had recourse to a Master Diary which reflected the state of each hearing Court’s diary. This Court also dealt with adjournments of cases, applications for bail and warrants of arrest, and related matters. As for summons instituted by ministries, departments and statutory bodies — the numbers of which were markedly increasing — a separate Court (Court No. 13) was assigned to deal with them in the same manner as Court No. 26 dealt with its own. There was also a Civil Mentions Court that dealt with all fresh civil cases in respect of times for the filing of pleadings to setting down and dates for trial, and such.

Yet another function performed by Court 26 was that of a “filter court” whereby it kept ‘on call’ a number of minor criminal and departmental

cases as well as traffic cases, which, whenever a hearing court became available, could be transferred to that court for trial and disposal. These duties were, however, subsequently reassigned to another Court when it was noted that the incumbent Court No. 26 was too heavily burdened to deal with them in addition to its other functions. A separate Court (Court No. 14) now handled the daily “filter cases” which comprised a collection of between 12—15 minor criminal arrest and (Police) Summons cases, departmental summons cases, traffic cases as well as civil cases (sent from the Civil Mentions Court).

Initially it was observed that the system so employed made it possible to distribute the caseload for all the Courts more evenly than was possible previously. More importantly, however, it allowed for a more orderly management of the Court calendar for the entire subordinate judiciary and, consequently, for the more efficient utilisation of Court-room space and judicial time. These improvements to the system, from which everyone connected with the business done in the Subordinate Courts obviously benefitted, was however achieved without any of the advantages of computerised systems that are so commonplace today. The registration and collation of statistics and records were all achieved by manual means from the moment that a case was registered or an action filed in the Courts. It was in that sense labour intensive, a feature that inevitably allowed for errors, delays and a plodding cumbersomeness that was trying on anyone’s patience. This was not assisted by the inexorable yearly increases in the volume of cases that were landed in the Courts, which was largely due in part to increases in the numbers of offenders of new offences created by new legislation, as well as improved methods of detecting crime employed by the various law enforcement agencies. It was not a very flattering reflection of the expectations that...