Re How William Glen

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 11 May 1994
• Date: 11 May 1994
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 39 of 1994
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re How William Glen

[1994] SGHC 135

G P Selvam J

Originating Motion No 39 of 1994

High Court

Legal Profession–Admission–Ad hoc–Canadian Queen's Counsel seeking to appear as counsel–Scope of s 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Rev Ed)–Whether what was contemplated was admission of Queen's Counsel from the United Kingdom only–Whether admission should be restricted to banking and commercial matters–Whether present case of sufficient complexity and difficulty–Whether applicant sufficiently qualified–Section 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Rev Ed)–Statutory Interpretation–Construction of statute–Purposive approach–Words of statute plain and free from ambiguity–Whether to read in restrictions based on speeches in Parliament

A Canadian Queen's Counsel (“the applicant”) applied for an ad hoc admission to appear as counsel for four appellants in their appeal to the High Court against their convictions. The Attorney-General, the Public Prosecutor and the Law Society submitted that the court ought not to grant the application, because s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Rev Ed) was subject to two limitations: that what was contemplated was admission of Queen's Counsel from the United Kingdom only; and that admission should be restricted to banking and commercial matters. It was also asserted that the case was insufficiently complex or difficult to warrant a Queen's Counsel, and that the applicant had no special experience or knowledge to argue the case at hand.

Held, granting the application:

(1) The primary duty of the courts was to give effect to the words of a statute. Where the words of a statute were plain and free from ambiguity, the courts could not call in aid extrinsic material for interpretation. The purposive approach to interpreting a statute applied only where the words were ambiguous. In the present case, the words of s 21 of the Legal Profession Act were very clear. As such, the court would not accept the restrictions argued for based on the speeches in Parliament: at [14], [16] and [17].

(2) Admissions should be considered on the basis of the essential rule of justice that like cases should be given like treatment. Admissions in the past have not been limited to Queen's Counsel from UK nor confined to banking and commercial cases: at [18], [19] and [20].

(3) The present application involving constitutional issues was more complex and difficult than several other cases where admissions were granted in the past. Questions relating to fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution would inevitably be brought up in the appeal: at [21].

(4) It had been demonstrated clearly that the experience and credentials the applicant possessed eminently qualified him to argue the appeal: at [22].

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1981] AC 251 (refd)

Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85; 8 ER 1034 (folld)

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

Interpretation Act (Cap 1,1985 Rev Ed)s 9A

Interpretation (Amendment) Act1993 (Act 11 of 1993)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161,1990 Rev Ed)s 21 (consd)

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

Leslie Netto and Tan Beng Swee (Netto Tan & S Magin) for the applicant

Jaswant Singh (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Attorney-General

Tek Heng (Chor Pee & Co) for the Law Society of Singapore

Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the Public Prosecutor.

Judgment reserved.

G P Selvam J

The application

1 Mr William Glen How, a Canadian Queen's Counsel, applied to this court for an ad hoc admission to appear as counsel for four appellants in their appeal to the High Court against their convictions. The appellants were convicted on charges of having in their possession prohibited publications without reasonable excuse under ss 3 and 4 (2) of the Undesirable Publications Act (Cap 338) (“the Act”). Fines of $800, $500, $500 and $700 were imposed on the four appellants.

2 The issues which, according to the appellants, are to be resolved in the appeals are set out in an affidavit leading to the application. They are:

(a) whether a subordinate court which has no power of judicial review has the jurisdiction to determine the validity of Gazette Notification No 123 (hereinafter referred to as “Order 123”) when such validity is raised by way of a defence to a criminal charge;

(b) the scope of and proper meaning of the term “patent invalidity”;

(c) whether there is a patent invalidity in Order 123;

(d...