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

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: CHEN, Siyuan, TAN, Kenneth
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2014
Subjects:
Asian Studies
Constitutional Law
Courts
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
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-3227
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-32272016-08-25T09:18:15Z 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 CHEN, Siyuan TAN, Kenneth 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. 2014-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf 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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Asian Studies Constitutional Law Courts
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Asian Studies
Constitutional Law
Courts
spellingShingle Asian Studies
Constitutional Law
Courts
CHEN, Siyuan
TAN, Kenneth
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
description 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.
format text
author CHEN, Siyuan
TAN, Kenneth
author_facet CHEN, Siyuan
TAN, Kenneth
author_sort CHEN, Siyuan
title 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
title_short 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_sort 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
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2014
url 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
_version_ 1772829463715774464

Similar Items