Re Caplan Jonathan Michael

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date01 November 1997
Date01 November 1997
Docket NumberOriginating Motion No 33 of 1997
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC

Yong Pung How CJ

Originating Motion No 33 of 1997

High Court

Legal Profession–Admission–Ad hoc–Queen's Counsel–Three-stage test–Stricter criteria for criminal cases–“Special reasons” under s 21 (1A) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed)–Whether case of sufficient difficulty and complexity–Whether there were factors that qualified as special reasons for admitting applicant

The applicant, a QC, applied under s 21 (1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) to appear for the appellant Nomura, a Japanese national, convicted under s 467 read with s 471 and s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) for abetting one Okada, in fraudulently using as genuine a forged document purporting to be a Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank (“DKB”) bank draft for the sum of 1.27 trillion (S$16bn). Nomura was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on each of two charges and sentences to run concurrently.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) Under s 21 of the Act, the applicant must: (a) demonstrate that the case in which he sought to appear contained issues of law and/or fact of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require a QC's elucidation; (b) persuade the court that the circumstances of the case warranted the court to exercise its discretion in favour of his admission; and (c) to satisfy the court of his suitability for admission: at [12].

(2) The criteria for admitting a QC in criminal cases was stricter, with the insertion of a new s 21 (1A) in 1 January 1997. The court must be satisfied that there was a special reason to admit a QC: at [13].

(3) Based on the affidavit filed by Nomura's counsel, the facts of this case were no more complex than many of the cheating cases heard regularly in the District Courts. The affidavit also did not specify what factors there were to constitute “special reasons” for allowing the application. The fact that Nomura was a wealthy and respectable Japanese national could not be regarded as a special reason under s 21 (1A) of the Act. The fact that the trial lasted 54 days in itself did not suffice as an indication of factual complexity. The trial was prolonged because four out of the five accused acted in person and all testified with the aid of a Japanese interpreter: at [21] and [23].

(4) The task of sifting through the evidence adduced in the trial and persuading the High Court that sufficient evidence existed in support of Nomura's defence was not a task of such magnitude to require a QC. Without doubting the applicant's experience and qualifications, there must be numerous local criminal lawyers who were more than equal to the challenge of such a task: at [22].

Allan David Green QC, Re [1996] SGHC 166 (refd)

Cheam Tat Pang v PP [1996] 1 SLR (R) 161; [1996] 1 SLR 541 (refd)

How William Glen, Re [1994] 2 SLR (R) 357; [1994] 3 SLR 474 (refd)

Price Arthur Leolin v AG [1992] 3 SLR (R) 113; [1992] 2 SLR 972 (folld)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1992 Reprint) Art 15

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 121

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) s 21 (1A) (consd);s 21 (1)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 109, 467, 471

Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 5 (a) (i)

Undesirable Publications Act (Cap 338, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 3, 4 (2)

Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira & Partners) for the applicant

Hamidul Haq and Helene Ng (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent

Martin Marini (Chan & Ravindran) for the Law Society of Singapore.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The applicant in this case, Mr Jonathan Michael Caplan QC, applied to be admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor on behalf of the appellant in Magistrate's Appeal No 91 of 1997. Having heard the submissions of his counsel and having heard also the submissions of the deputy public prosecutor and counsel appearing on behalf of the Law Society, I dismissed the motion for admission. I now set forth my reasons in writing.

The facts of Magistrate's Appeal No 91 of 1997

2 The appellant in Magistrate's Appeal No 91 of 1997 is one Nomura Taiji, a Japanese national (“the appellant”). The appellant faced three charges in the District Court of abetting one Okada Sadako, also a Japanese national, in fraudulently using as genuine a forged document purporting to be a Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank (“DKB”) bank draft for the sum of 1.27 trillion (S$16bn). These charges were brought under s 467 read with ss 471 and 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). Two out of the three charges were proceeded with whilst the remaining third charge was stood down. The appellant was jointly tried on these two charges with four other accused persons in a trial which lasted 54 days. He was convicted of both charges and sentenced to two four-year terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. He declined to have the third charge taken into consideration for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 Abril 2013
    ...dismissed with the usual consequential orders. Andrews Geraldine Mary QC, Re [2013] 1 SLR 872 (refd) Caplan Jonathan Michael QC, Re [1997] 3 SLR (R) 404; [1998] 1 SLR 432 (distd) Charles Gray for admission as a barrister, Re an application of [1984] HKLR 367 (distd) Cheam Tat Pang v PP [199......
  • Re Godfrey Gerald QC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Noviembre 2002
    ...law on admission of Queen’s Counsel under section 21 of the Legal Profession Act is clear. As set out in Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC [1998] 1 SLR 432 at 435 and applied in many subsequent cases, an application for admission under that section has to satisfy a three-stage test. At the firs......
  • Re De Lacy Richard QC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 Marzo 2003
    ...of the view that it failed all three stages of the test in section 21 Legal Profession Act explained in Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC [1998] 1 SLR 432. In summary, I held as follows in the first (1) the facts and the legal issues in the action were not of sufficient difficulty and complexit......
  • Re Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PCQC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 19 Septiembre 2013
    ...Re [2013] 1 SLR 872 (refd) Beloff Michael Jacob QC, Re [2000] 1 SLR (R) 943; [2000] 2 SLR 782 (refd) Caplan Jonathan Michael QC, Re [1997] 3 SLR (R) 404; [1998] 1 SLR 432 (refd) Caplan Jonathan Michael QC, Re [2013] 3 SLR 66 (folld) Lim Meng Suang v AG [2013] 3 SLR 118 (refd) Platts-Mills M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 Diciembre 2003
    ...reason is still obscure despite previous authoritative expatiations. As explained by Yong Pung How CJ in Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC[1998] 1 SLR 432 at [16], criminal cases with constitutional implications and criminal cases with repercussions ‘for the way in which an entire section of th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT