Court Watch Report: Observations of Singapore High and District Courts

This report provides an account of observations from visits to the High Court and District Court of Singapore. The High Court case, Re Swiber Holdings Ltd, involved the rights of creditors, while the District Court case, Public Prosecutor v Abdul Faisal bin A Mohammad, concerned a drug possession charge. The report highlights the differences in jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and Magistrate Courts, the courtroom designs, and the conduct of the legal professionals. It notes the efficiency and professionalism of the court proceedings, the decorum maintained by the parties, and the need for improved security. The author found the experience valuable in understanding the Singaporean legal system and the effective legal skills of the solicitors, emphasizing the importance of such visits for gaining practical knowledge of court proceedings.

Running head: REPORT OF A COURT WATCH
Report of a Court watch
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1REPORT OF A COURT WATCH
In the modern world, people always look for justice whenever their rights are
infringed. The Courts and the Court proceedings of the various courts of different countries
differs from each other, and has always played an important role in providing justice to its
citizens. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the observation of the trial
proceedings of the High Court and District Court of Singapore.
The paper is prepared based on the visit of High court of Singapore on 16 August
2018 and a visit to the District Court on 15 August 2018. The High Court of Singapore deals
with both the civil and criminal matter on its original and appellate jurisdiction. On that day
the case of Re Swiber Holdings Ltd and another matter [2018] SGHC 180 was undergoing
trial under the precision of Kannan Ramesh J. The parties two the case were Swiber Holdings
Ltd and the Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd. The parties were represented by Sim
Kwan Kiat, Wilson Zhu and Quen Teck Liang for the judicial managers, Tan Kok Quan
Partnership for United Overseas Bank Ltd, JLC Advisors LLP for Siam Commercial Bank
Public Company Limited and others. The case decides the rights of the creditors to be
entitled to vote for the claim with or without deducting the value of their third party
securities. The Coram agreed with the judicial manager of SOC and SHL and supported with
the decision that a creditor whose claim is secured by a third party, is not a secured creditor.
Another visited was made to the District Court on 15 August 2018, on which the case
of Public Prosecutor v Abdul Faisal bin A Mohammad [2018] SGDC 215 was decided by
Carol Ling Feng Yong. Parties to the case were Public Prosecutor and Abdul Faisal bin A
Mohammad, who were represented by Sia JiaZheng and Kertar Singh respectively. The
accused was arrested as two packets of drug was found under his possession. Carefully
observing the argument and examining the evidences Carol Ling Feng Yong decided that
accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

2REPORT OF A COURT WATCH
From this visit, the procedure of Supreme Court and the Magistrate Court can be
differentiated. Supreme Court contains High Court and Court of Appeal; and exercises its
jurisdiction, when the value of the claim is above S$250,000.00. Whereas, the Magistrate
Courts deals with a case whose value of claim does not exceed S$250,000.00. In criminal
cases, High Court of Court of Appeal hears cases that involves sentences of more than 10
years of punishments.
As the High Court of Singapore deals with both the Original and Appellate
Jurisdiction, of civil and criminal nature, several number of cases were undergoing trial on
the very same day. The courtrooms were designed in a simple manner. However, there were
not sufficient space and not all the courtrooms were of same and appropriate size. The
presiding Coram Kannan Ramesh J dealt with the process with proper order, calmness and
knowledge and decided the case proficiently. The solicitors were extremely mannerly and
serious. On the day of High Court visit, the parties were found to be very obedient. They
maintained the decorum and dignity of the Court rules. The clerk and the media were very
attentive and professional while listening to the judgement. However, the security system
should be improved at the earliest, as it was not safe enough for a District Court. Overall, the
observation and experiences for a first time Court visit was impressive. A sufficient amount
of knowledge can be gained from such a visit. The effective legal skills of the solicitors
regarding research and communication was remarkable. They were able to assist and advise
their clients, and made their argument supported by evidence. Both Kannan Ramesh J and
Carol Ling Feng Yong ensured justice to the parties in a very effective method. Relief was
provided to the parties so suitably that they had agreed to the decision of the Court. One can
learn from the argument and the proceeding about the appropriate judicial system of the

3REPORT OF A COURT WATCH
country. The case was comprehensible for the non-professionals also. Overall, it was a
valuable experience into the legal action of court proceeding.