LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ORDINANCE (Extension of provisions to cover criminal matters before High Court)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he will consider extending the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance to criminal matters before the High Court, and what is the estimated cost of such extension.

Mr K. M. Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the view of the Government is that the present structure of the legal aid system in Singapore is not suitable for extension to criminal cases.

The legal aid system in England as administered by the Law Society is not concerned with criminal legal aid. The system of criminal legal aid in England is administered through the Courts themselves. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions himself considers all applications for legal aid in his court and grants or rejects applications in his sole discretion. Likewise do the Magistrates. So also does the Judge or Commissioner in the Old Bailey.

If a legal aid scheme for criminal cases is introduced, it must, if it is to be fairly administered, apply to all cases whether before the High Court or before the subordinate Courts. This is the practice in England. There is already in existence a scheme whereby lawyers are assigned to accused persons charged with capital offences. All provisions in the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance envisage recourse to the English system. This would mean the Courts administering criminal legal aid, considering all such applications and assigning all cases which they think should be granted legal aid to members of the profession. The profession therefore would have to play an even more active role in participating in such a legal aid scheme if legal aid is to be extended to criminal cases. Such an extension of the legal aid system must apply to all criminal cases, not only the High Court cases, and the members of the profession must be prepared to participate on the basis that no assigned brief can be refused at the rates to be prescribed even though members of the profession can command higher fees on other work in respect of the time employed on such assigned cases.

The Government would prefer legal aid to be given in criminal cases by the Bench with the full co-operation of the Bar as it is the practice in England, rather than legal aid to be provided by lawyers in full-time Government employment. It does seem odd that the State should prosecute offenders and, at the same time, engage lawyers in full-time employment to defend these offenders. I know this is the practice in certain States in Australia, but we have been used to the practice here of assigning counsel for the defence in capital charges, and this system could very well be extended by adopting the English practice in regard to the grant of legal aid in criminal cases.

One great advantage of the English system of legal aid in criminal cases, which is completely outside the English legal aid service operated by the Law Society in civil cases, is that it is operated by the Judiciary and the Bar. Judges can be depended on to look fairly into the legal points of criminal cases which are before them for trial and can be depended on to reject applications for legal aid in criminal cases where no points of legal difficulty are likely to arise. It is not the intention of the scheme of legal aid in criminal cases in England or here to grant legal aid to all and sundry but to grant it in criminal cases involving fine points of the law.

It is not possible to estimate accurately the cost of extending the legal aid scheme to all criminal matters before the High Court. There were 152 criminal cases tried in the High Court in 1961 and 1962, and if the costs per case are estimated at $1,000, the cost to Government of extending legal aid to all criminal cases in the High Court will be around $76,000 a year.

As the administration of justice will be a Federal matter, estimates for such a scheme will have to be approved by the Central Government, and the Singapore Government is in no position to accept any such commitment on its own responsibility.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Is the Minister aware that the Bar Committee fully support the suggestion of the extension of free legal aid to all criminal cases in the High Court, whether the appellate or original jurisdiction? If he is, would he consider negotiating with them with a view to evolving a scheme satisfactory to that end?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have already explained, the administration of justice is a Federal responsibility. We cannot as a Government enter into any commitments on our own responsibility.

If the Bar Committee had been really keen on the extension of legal aid to criminal cases, they would have taken steps to see that such a system was introduced. But so far, they have only voiced the opinion that the legal aid system is acceptable to them. But they have done nothing to further their demand for the extension of legal aid.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Does the Minister not consider that the provision of legal and is a social amenity and not in the course of the administration of justice?

Mr Byrne: You have to run the legal aid system in a proper way. I have just pointed out to Members of the House that in England it is administered by the Bar in co-operation with the Judiciary.

It is not the intention to give legal aid to everybody who makes a claim for legal aid in criminal cases. It is only granted in cases where there are points of law involved and it is only the Judge who can decide what case is fit and proper for the grant of legal aid.

Mr David Marshall: I will not take much of the time of the Minister. I have just one more question to ask. Is he not conscious that throughout Australia and the United States free legal aid is granted in all criminal cases? I am sure he is conscious that in Singapore, where the vast majority of our population do not speak the language of the administration of justice, it is particularly important that they should have legal assistance not merely where points of law arise but for the proper presentation of their cases. In these circumstances, would he reconsider the position?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said all that needs to be said on this matter. If the Bar Committee in Singapore really want the extension of legal aid to criminal matters, it is up to them to press this demand more vigorously than they have done in the past.