SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill and the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill are to give effect to the recommendations of the Rules of the Supreme Court Working Committee. The objectives of the amendments are:

(a) to empower the Subordinate Courts to punish any person who commits a contempt of court in connection with any proceedings in the Subordinate Courts;

(b) to allow a Judge or Judicial Commissioner who reserves judgment in any proceedings to deliver his judgment even though his appointment as a Judge or Judicial Commissioner might have expired or has been terminated; and

(c) to establish a new Rules Committee under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to make a new set of Rules which will govern civil proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts.

As for the first point, I have already dealt with the matter when I took the Second Reading of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill.

As for the second proposed amendment, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 10 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to allow a Judge who has reserved judgment in any proceedings to deliver his judgment even though his appointment as a Judge might have expired or terminated. In addition, clause 3 of the same Bill amends the definition of a "Judge" in section 2 of the same Act to clarify that this word also includes a Judicial Commissioner being a person appointed to exercise the powers of a Judge.

Sir, as for the third proposed amendment, the Rules of the Supreme Court Working Committee has proposed that there should be a single set of rules of court governing civil proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts. This new set of Rules will be made by a single Rules Committee to be appointed under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Clause 4 which amends section 80, together with clause 3 of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill which amends section 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act, both give effect to this proposal. The present Rules Committee appointed under the Subordinate Courts Act will be replaced by the Rules Committee appointed under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Sir, consequential amendments will also be made to the Interpretation Act, the Small Claims Tribunals Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The amendment to the Interpretation Act changes the reference of the Rules to the new Rules of Court and not the Rules of the Supreme Court/Supreme Court Rules or the Rules of the Subordinate Courts/Subordinate Courts Rules. The Small Claims Tribunals Act is also amended to enable future rules governing the proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunals to be made by the new Rules Committee to be appointed, and not the present Rules Committee under the Subordinate Courts Act. Finally, the consequential amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act will change the composition of the new Rules Committee constituted under section 80(3) to include members of the subordinate judiciary.

Sir, these amendments are necessary to make the Courts even more effective and efficient in the administration of justice.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I wish to get some clarifications from the Minister. I wonder why is it necessary to have clause 3 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. Have there been cases where a Judge has failed to deliver his reserved judgment at a later date after his appointment had expired or terminated? Following on that, is the Judge also required to prepare his notes of evidence and grounds of decision if there were an appeal on his judgment after he has left the service?

On the definition of "Judge", it includes a Judicial Commissioner being a person appointed to exercise the powers of a Judge. Just a clarification. Do Judicial Commissioners get the same salary although they are not Judges?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, in answer to his first question, as far as I can recall, there were at least one or two instances where a situation did occur that a Judge did not finally render his judgment before his termination or expiry of his term of appointment. I think such instances will be very rare. But to provide for that eventuality, this amendment is necessary. I am sure that in the present-day context, it is unlikely that this situation will arise. But if it does arise, I think we must provide that in that case, it will be permissible for the Judge to give his judgment, which has been reserved, at a later date. I understand that in one or two instances which happened previously, an option was given to the parties concerned that they could either agree to another Judge arriving at a decision based on the transcripts of the notes or to have the matter tried de novo, all over again. So it is to save time and effort that this provision is included. As to whether there will be provision for appeal on the reserved judgment, I am sure that the judiciary will provide for that kind of situation.

As regards a Judicial Commissioner sitting as a Judge, this is also for avoidance of any doubt and you will find similar provisions elsewhere. I think there is such a provision even in the Constitution which clarifies the matter. The question of pay, of course, is not addressed here and that has to be dealt with separately elsewhere.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, a further clarification. I think the Minister has not clarified the point where a Judge's appointment has already expired or terminated. He delivers the judgment after he has left the service. Then there is an appeal on his judgment. By this time, he is already out of the service. Has he got to come back and write his grounds of decision for the purposes of appeal?

Prof. Jayakumar: My understanding is that, and I stand corrected if other Members have any other information, if he has reserved judgment and he gives the judgment later, it will be a written judgment, which will therefore contain the grounds of his decision. That is my understanding.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.