Re Littlemore Stuart QC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 31 January 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 16
• Date: 31 January 2002
• Subject Matter: Three-stage test,Legal Profession,Admission,Ad hoc,Whether applicant fit and suitable for admission,Relevance of applicant's past conduct showing contempt for Singapore judiciary,Applicant to possess certain qualities,s 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Ed),Whether applicant's personal views and technical competence mutually exclusive
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 600002 of
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Yang Lih Shyng (Khattar Wong & Partners),Jeffrey Chan (Senior State Counsel)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: The defendant in person,Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar and Siraj Omar (Drew & Napier LLC)

: By this originating motion filed on 11 January 2002, Mr Stuart Littlemore QC (`Mr Littlemore`) sought ad hoc admission under s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Ed) (`the Act`) as an advocate and solicitor of this court to appear for Dr Chee Soon Juan (`Dr Chee`) in the trials of two defamation suits in which Dr Chee was sued by Mr Goh Chok Tong, the Prime Minister, and Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Senior Minister, until the final disposal of the two suits.

I heard the motion on 18 January 2002. Dr Chee appeared in person and made the application in support of which he filed a very brief affidavit. Both counsel for the Attorney General and the Law Society of Singapore opposed the application on a number of grounds, but it is necessary only to deal with the most fundamental objection. Both the Attorney General and the Law Society of Singapore fundamentally questioned the suitability of Mr Littlemore for admission, having regard to the incontrovertible evidence that he had disparaged the Singapore judiciary by saying that it is `compliant` and `in the pocket of the government`. Counsel for the plaintiffs in the two defamation suits informed me that his clients had no objections to Dr Chee being represented by a Queen`s Counsel. On the question whether Mr Littlemore was a fit and proper person for admission counsel told me that his clients would leave it to the court. At the conclusion of the hearing of the application, I dismissed it.

The law on Queen`s Counsel admission

Section 21 of the Act states 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 -

(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.

The requirements of s 21 were clearly set out by Yong Pung How CJ in Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2) [1998] 1 SLR 440 at [para ]11:

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 the court exercising its discretion in favour of his admission. Finally, he has to satisfy the court of his suitability for admission.

By s 21 of the Act Parliament conferred on a QC the eligibility to apply for ad hoc admission. The conferment of that privilege must obviously be predicated upon at least two essential qualities which an applicant must possess. First, and it is of fundamental importance, we must be satisfied that by his reputation and conduct he will be responsible, honourable, courteous and respectful of our judiciary. Though it is his duty to advance the cause of those instructing him fearlessly and with courage in accordance...