Re Caplan Jonathan Michael
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Yong Pung How CJ |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 1997 |
| Neutral Citation | [1997] SGHC 284 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira & Partners) |
| Published date | 19 September 2003 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Defendant Counsel | Hamidul Haq and Helene Ng (Deputy Public Prosecutors),Martin Marini (Chan & Ravindran) |
| Subject Matter | Legal Profession,Admission,Ad hoc,Queen's Counsel,Three-stage test for admission,Stricter criteria for criminal cases -Requirement of "special reasons" under s 21(1A) of Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed),Whether issues raise complex and difficult points of law,Whether any special reason for admitting applicant,s 21(1A) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed) |
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 MA 91/97. 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.
2. The facts of MA 91/97
The appellant in MA 91/97 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$16 billion). 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 purpose of sentencing and claimed trial to this third charge as well. He is presently on bail pending the appeal.
3.The facts of the appellant`s case were as follows. In 1992 the appellant met one Okada Sadako (Okada), a woman who made public claims to being the illegitimate daughter of the late Emperor Hirohito of Japan. Okada claimed that the late emperor had left her a bequest of ¥13.97 trillion which was kept at DKB and which bequest had become due to her on the emperor`s death in 1989. Okada had in her possession what purported to be a DKB bank draft for the sum of ¥1.27 trillion (S$16 billion), which sum she said represented part of the accumulated interest on her inheritance of ¥13.97 trillion. This was the exhibit marked P12 in the court below.
4.Okada claimed to be experiencing difficulty in obtaining access to her inheritance. In December 1995 she asked the appellant for a loan in order to travel to Singapore, London and the United States. She apparently hoped to borrow even larger sums of money from various people and organisations in these countries. The appellant gave Okada money totaling ¥5m on three occasions between December 1995 and January 1996.
5.Using the money obtained from the appellant, Okada travelled to Singapore and, in the company of other persons, approached three banks in Singapore with the document P12.
6.In early March 1996 Okada, who was then in Japan, was told that the Singapore branch of the Republic National Bank of New York (RNB) had processed the bank draft and that the funds were ready to be credited into her account in Singapore. Okada set off for Singapore together with the appellant and other persons. Their group of six was arrested in Singapore upon arrival.
7.The act of abetment alleged in the three charges against the appellant was said to be constituted by the loan of moneys to Okada (totaling ¥5m) on three occasions between December 1995 and January 1996.
8.In the trial below, the appellant sought to show in his defence that the ¥5m given to Okada constituted, not a loan, but a gift to someone he believed to be a genuine member of the Imperial family. He also sought to show that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the offence because he had actually believed Okada`s claims to being the daughter of Emperor Hirohito; he had also believed that the purported DKB bank draft for ¥1.27 trillion (exh P12) was genuine; he had not known that Okada was seeking to encash P12 but had believed that she was merely having its authenticity confirmed.
9.The district judge disbelieved the appellant`s defence and convicted him of the two charges proceeded with by the prosecution.
10. The relevant considerations under s 21(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed)
Before I give the reasons for my rejection of Mr Caplan`s application for admission, it will be useful to set out the principles which I bore in mind when considering the application.
11.Mr Caplan`s application was made pursuant to s 21 of the Legal Profession Act. Under s 21(1), 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 -(a) holds her Majesty`s Patent as Queen`s Counsel;
(b) does not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia but who has come or intends to come to Singapore for the purpose of appearing in the case; and
(c) has special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case.
12.In Price Arthur Leolin v A-G & Ors [1992] 2 SLR 972 , the Court of Appeal has set out the relevant considerations to be borne in mind by the court when deciding whether the criteria set out in s 21 of the Legal Profession Act has been satisfied in an application for admission of a Queen`s Counsel. That judgment went into some detail; and it would be superfluous for me to quote verbatim from the judgment. I think it will be sufficient to say, by way of summary, that s 21(1) spells out a three-stage test. At the first stage, the applicant must demonstrate that the case in which he seeks to appear contains issues of law and/or fact of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require elucidation and/or argument by a Queen`s Counsel. Such difficulty or complexity is not of itself a guarantee of admission, for the decision to admit is still a matter for the court`s discretion. At the second stage, therefore, the applicant must persuade the court that the circumstances of the particular case warrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial