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.
Asian Studies | Constitutional Law | Courts
Law, Society and Governance
Singapore Law Watch Commentaries
Singapore Academy of Law
City or Country
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  SGHC 10. (2014). Singapore Law Watch Commentaries. 2014, (3), 1-6. Research Collection School Of Law.
Available at: http://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 License.