Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 19 July 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 125
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 20 July 2006
• Year: 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher Tan Teow Hin and Paul Ong Min-Tse (Allen & Gledhill)
• Defendant Counsel: Kelvin Tan Teck San,Dominic Zou (State Counsel)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Admission,Ad hoc,Application of Queen's Counsel,Three-stage test,Case must be of sufficient difficulty and complexity and court must have regard to the circumstances in the case,Whether application raised issues of law or fact of sufficient difficulty or complexity,Whether circumstances of the case justify admission of Queen's Counsel,Section 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed)
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 125

19 July 2006 Judgment reserved.

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 The applicant, Mr Jonathan Michael Caplan, a Queen’s Counsel, applied under s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) to practise as an advocate and solicitor for the purpose of arguing the appeal of one Mr Saimee bin Jumaat (“Mr Saimee”), a jockey with the Singapore Turf Club (“STC”), who had been suspended for one year following a disciplinary inquiry conducted by the STC’s Stipendiary Stewards.

2 Mr Saimee was charged with breaching rule 144(2) of the Malayan Racing Association Rules of Racing (“MRA Rules”), which requires the rider of every horse to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity of winning or of obtaining the best possible placing in the race. It was alleged that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that Diamond N Ace, the horse he was riding in the tenth race of the STC Meeting on 18 February 2006, was given every opportunity of winning that race or of obtaining the best possible placing in that race. As it turned out, his horse was placed fourth in that race.

3 A Stipendiary Stewards’ inquiry was convened to investigate the case. The inquiry was held on 23 February 2006, 2 March 2006 and 23 March 2006. It was alleged that when riding Diamond N Ace at the material time, he failed to ride with sufficient vigour and determination from near the 450m mark until near the 300m mark and that he also failed to attempt to go to the outside of another horse, Little Wizard, from near the 450m mark until near the 300m mark when there was an opportunity and it was reasonable to do so.

4 Mr Saimee was not legally represented at the inquiry but he called an expert, Mr Ivan Allan, to testify at the inquiry. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Stipendiary Stewards found Mr Saimee guilty of breaching rule 144(2) of the MRA Rules. Pursuant to rule 144(5) of the MRA Rules, he was disqualified from riding for one year.

5 Mr Saimee exercised his right to appeal against the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards. His grounds of appeal are as follows:

(a) The Stipendiary Stewards erred in convicting the Appellant under MRA Rule 144(2) as there was no evidence that showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the Appellant had not taken all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity of winning or of obtaining the best possible place;

(b) The Stipendiary Stewards ought to have accepted the evidence and the explanations of the Appellant in respect of his riding of DIAMOND N ACE in the Race, which evidence and explanations clearly showed that he had ridden DIAMOND N ACE to the best of his ability taking into due consideration all the factors and situations prevalent throughout the race and the performance of DIAMOND N ACE[;]

(c) The Stipendiary Stewards failed to give due weight to the evidence and opinion of Mr Ivan Allan, who was called by the Appellant to testify as a defence witness when his said evidence was fair and credible; and

(d) The Stipendiary Stewards failed to consider that the fourth placing of DIAMOND N ACE in the race was the best result that the said horse could have achieved considering that the horse was inclined to hang in during the race and this important factor in no small measure contributed to his resultant fourth placing.

6 Mr Saimee’s appeal will be heard by the STC’s Racing Stewards on a date to be fixed. Rule 5B(3) of the MRA Rules provides that for the purpose of an appeal, the Racing Stewards may, in their absolute discretion, permit any person to be represented by “a member of the legal profession”. Mr Saimee wishes to be represented at the appeal by Mr Caplan. Hence, this application for Mr Caplan to be admitted on an ad hoc basis to the Bar.

7 Section 21 of the LPA, which concerns the admission of Queen’s Counsel, provides as follows:

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the court may, for the purpose of any one case where the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty and complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case, admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor any person who...