Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

Login

Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile App

Highlights
Agenda
Fridae Shop
Directory
Advertisement

News & Features

« Newer | Older »
20 Sep 2013

Singapore court rejects gay couple's application to have Queen's Counsel represent them in s377A case

A Singapore court has denied the application by a Singaporean gay couple to have a Queen’s Counsel represent them in their appeal against the dismissal of their challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men.

Advertisement



Gary Lim, 44, and Kenneth Chee, 37, have been partners for 15 years.

In July, Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee announced that they have appointed a new lawyer Senior Counsel Deborah Barker at KhattarWong LLP, one of Singapore’s leading law firms, and for the admission of Lord (Peter) Goldsmith QC to argue the appeal as co-counsel with Barker.

They are appealing their case after the High Court in Singapore in April dismissed a legal challenge filed by the couple of 15 years on the basis that section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalises sex between men and which provides a jail term of up to two years is unconstitutional.

Lord Goldsmith is Chair of Asia and European Litigation at Debevoise and Plimpton LLP, and was Attorney-General for England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2001 to 2007. He had recently represented the London-based Human Dignity Trust, the International Commission of Jurists and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association to argue a similar case to s377A before the Belize Court of Appeal. Located along the northeastern coast of Central America, the former British colony's criminal code currently outlaws "carnal intercourse" between consenting same-sex adults.

Judge of Appeal V K Rajah on Thursday dismissed the application and ruled that the application did not meet the requirement for admitting foreign senior counsel on an ad hoc  basis under the Legal Profession Act, where there must be a “special reason” to do so, according to Singapore's Today newspaper.

The report said:

While there is no definitive parameter on the requirement, he said “there must be something specific to the nature of the facts or legal issues concerned beyond the expected features of ordinary constitutional cases”. In this case, there was nothing “out of the ordinary which would constitute a special reason” to justify Lord Goldsmith’s admission.

He also noted that foreign senior counsel can participate in the preparation of both written submissions and further submissions, as well as the oral case, by anticipating and preparing questions. “In the Singapore context, written advocacy has a more prominent part to play in the appellate process than in other common law jurisdictions … The written medium functions as the focal means by which counsel informs and persuades the court on the merits of their submissions”, while oral submissions build upon rather than supplant arguments made, he said.

The case will be heard by the Court of Appeal in three weeks’ time.

Singapore

Reader's Comments

1. 2013-09-21 04:26
What is out of the ordinary is that the government is using all its built in advantages to oppose what they see as an undesirable change in human rights where every one is treated as equal 8under the law.

Even if the government loses this case they will do everything in their power to delay passing amending legislation saying again and again the "majority" don't want this change.

The reality is that the vast majority have no opinion on the basis that they are not concerned
Comment #2 was deleted by its author on 2013-09-21 23:12
3. 2013-09-21 23:13
it is reasonable if court reject this couple because they can not feel what this couple feel, their old parameters just holly books
Except the court having high spiritual level with broad boundaries that is 100% faith to God, not to holly books.
this couple should understand, that Court have limitation to understand more about life beyond them.

mean that you should give way to court to understand.
So, the court is not solely wrong by their darkness.
everybody has own darkness side because we just human.
this is human right when court having own darkness.

you need to forgive the weakness of court, that is love.
you need to sacrifice yourself and should not always yourself win to satisfy others.
we are going to leave this planet, leaving them happy with their weakness.
that is love
4. 2013-09-22 06:34
No right to legal counsel in Singapore? Sounds like Zimbabwe.
Comment #5 was deleted by its author on 2013-09-22 07:07
6. 2013-09-23 08:46
#4, the couple have a right to counsel but, in this case, not to foreign counsel. As you would have noticed, Gary and Kenneth are already represented by Deborah Barker, SC, a distinguished member of the Singapore Bar. They wanted Lord Goldsmith admitted for their appeal because he has special expertise in arguing human rights cases. Obviously, the judge didn't feel that Lord Goldsmith would add any particular weight to Gary and Kenneth's appeal. So, #4, it's not a question of whether or not one has a right to counsel but more a question of whether or not FOREIGN counsel should be allowed to argue a case in a Singapore court. And, that court has spoken.

Please log in to use this feature.

Select News Edition

Recent Articles

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook

Partners

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement