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

Author

Siyuan CHEN, Singapore Management UniversityFollow
Kenneth TAN

Publication Type

Blog Post

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

1-2014

Abstract

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.

Discipline

Asian Studies | Constitutional Law | Courts

Publication

Singapore Law Watch Commentaries

Volume

2014

Issue

3

First Page

1

Last Page

6

Publisher

Singapore Academy of Law

City or Country

Singapore

Citation

CHEN, Siyuan and 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. (2014). Singapore Law Watch Commentaries. 2014, (3), 1-6.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1274

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

Comments

Archived on LawNet

Additional URL

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/singapore-law-watch/commentaries