- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,619
- Points
- 48
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110106-0000187/Fee-hike-to-curb-wasted-work
Fee hike to curb 'wasted work'
Sub Courts says rise in criminal appeals and greater percentage of withdrawn or lapsed cases
by Leong Wee Keat 05:55 AM Jan 06, 2011
SINGAPORE - Following its recent move to increase the appeal fee 10-fold to $50, the Subordinate Courts has disclosed that the number of criminal appeals has surged in recent years.
At the same time, the number of appeals that were withdrawn or lapsed are also on the rise.
A Subordinate Courts spokesperson said: "This contributes to much wasted work as the record of proceedings is prepared and compiled, but the appeal is not eventually heard."
However, lawyers who spoke to MediaCorp pointed out that there could be various reasons for the withdrawal of appeals. Some defendants may not wish to prolong the agony of defending, while some may have felt initially aggrieved by the court's decision, but later realise that their chances of succeeding in their appeals are not high.
As reported by MediaCorp last week, the Subordinate Courts revised the appeal fee for criminal charges from Jan 2. The fee, paid to obtain a copy of the record of proceedings and grounds of decision, had stood at $5 since 1985.
The fee hike has sparked concern among some lawyers that other criminal litigation costs may also increase.
Both the Law Society and the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) - which were not consulted on the change - are gathering feedback from members.
Noting some "grumbling" among members, ACLS president Subhas Anandan said: "If feedback and feelings are strong, we may suggest a meeting with the Subordinate Courts."
With the exception of commercial crime, lawyers said that, anecdotally, those accused of criminal offences were mostly people without much financial means.
Lawyer Sng Kheng Huat said: "To some people, the increase appears to be a big jump." Mr Sng added that the appeal fee should only go towards covering administration costs.
But the Subordinate Courts said 47 per cent of accused persons who appealed in 2009 did not have to pay the fee. Defendants who are unrepresented and serving sentence at the time the fee is payable and pro bono cases will have their fees waived.
A normal record of appeal consists of documents such as charges, statement of facts (if a person pleads guilty), the accused person's criminal records, notes of evidence, and the court's grounds of decision.
The Subordinate Courts spokesperson added: "If a matter has gone to trial ... the record of proceedings often consists of no less than 150 pages, and may run into several volumes. In such a case, the $5 fee is insufficient to even cover the cost of printing the record of proceedings."
But lawyer Tan Hee Joek said it was "strange" to speak about cost recovery in the context of criminal prosecution. Mr Tan wondered: Will this lead to cost recovery for all failed appeals in the future?
Pointing out that on average, appeals form "less than one per cent of the criminal cases heard", the Subordinate Courts reiterated that the revised fee should not discourage genuine cases.
Concurring, lawyer Daniel Atticus Xu pointed out that the opportunity to get a High Court Judge to preside over a case with a fine-tooth comb is worth more than the $50 fee.
Lawyer Amarick Gill added: "If you feel there are merits in your case, the extra $45 will not deter you from appealing."
Fee hike to curb 'wasted work'
Sub Courts says rise in criminal appeals and greater percentage of withdrawn or lapsed cases
by Leong Wee Keat 05:55 AM Jan 06, 2011
SINGAPORE - Following its recent move to increase the appeal fee 10-fold to $50, the Subordinate Courts has disclosed that the number of criminal appeals has surged in recent years.
At the same time, the number of appeals that were withdrawn or lapsed are also on the rise.
A Subordinate Courts spokesperson said: "This contributes to much wasted work as the record of proceedings is prepared and compiled, but the appeal is not eventually heard."
However, lawyers who spoke to MediaCorp pointed out that there could be various reasons for the withdrawal of appeals. Some defendants may not wish to prolong the agony of defending, while some may have felt initially aggrieved by the court's decision, but later realise that their chances of succeeding in their appeals are not high.
As reported by MediaCorp last week, the Subordinate Courts revised the appeal fee for criminal charges from Jan 2. The fee, paid to obtain a copy of the record of proceedings and grounds of decision, had stood at $5 since 1985.
The fee hike has sparked concern among some lawyers that other criminal litigation costs may also increase.
Both the Law Society and the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) - which were not consulted on the change - are gathering feedback from members.
Noting some "grumbling" among members, ACLS president Subhas Anandan said: "If feedback and feelings are strong, we may suggest a meeting with the Subordinate Courts."
With the exception of commercial crime, lawyers said that, anecdotally, those accused of criminal offences were mostly people without much financial means.
Lawyer Sng Kheng Huat said: "To some people, the increase appears to be a big jump." Mr Sng added that the appeal fee should only go towards covering administration costs.
But the Subordinate Courts said 47 per cent of accused persons who appealed in 2009 did not have to pay the fee. Defendants who are unrepresented and serving sentence at the time the fee is payable and pro bono cases will have their fees waived.
A normal record of appeal consists of documents such as charges, statement of facts (if a person pleads guilty), the accused person's criminal records, notes of evidence, and the court's grounds of decision.
The Subordinate Courts spokesperson added: "If a matter has gone to trial ... the record of proceedings often consists of no less than 150 pages, and may run into several volumes. In such a case, the $5 fee is insufficient to even cover the cost of printing the record of proceedings."
But lawyer Tan Hee Joek said it was "strange" to speak about cost recovery in the context of criminal prosecution. Mr Tan wondered: Will this lead to cost recovery for all failed appeals in the future?
Pointing out that on average, appeals form "less than one per cent of the criminal cases heard", the Subordinate Courts reiterated that the revised fee should not discourage genuine cases.
Concurring, lawyer Daniel Atticus Xu pointed out that the opportunity to get a High Court Judge to preside over a case with a fine-tooth comb is worth more than the $50 fee.
Lawyer Amarick Gill added: "If you feel there are merits in your case, the extra $45 will not deter you from appealing."
