Publication Type

Blog Post

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

Research Areas

Law, Society and Governance

Publication

Singapore Law Watch Commentaries

Volume

2014

Issue

3

First Page

1

Last Page

6

Publisher

Singapore Academy of Law

City or Country

Singapore

Creative Commons License

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

Additional URL

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

Comments

Archived on LawNet

Share

COinS