Further Clarification from the High Court on the Limits to the Constitutional Right to Counsel: James Raj s/o Arokiasamy v PP [2014] SGHC 10
Article 9(3) of the Constitution1 states that “Where a person is arrested, he … shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.” However, art 9(3) does not stipulate the point in time at which an arrested person is entitled to consult counsel. The local jurispruden...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1274 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3227/viewcontent/1401_03_Arokiasamy_v_PP__2014__SGHC_10.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Article 9(3) of the Constitution1 states that “Where a person is arrested, he … shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.” However, art 9(3) does not stipulate the point in time at which an arrested person is entitled to consult counsel. The local jurisprudence over the past few decades have affirmed the interpretation that an arrested person is not entitled to access counsel immediately upon arrest, but only after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. The High Court in James Raj s/o Arokiasamy v Public Prosecutor (“James Raj”) has now shed more light on the rationale and operation of the limitation to this right. |
|---|