Law on ‘reasonable time’ before accused gets access to counsel clear: Court of Appeal

SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an application for the court to weigh in on the topic of an accused person’s access to lawyers, noting that the law was “settled” and that there was no controversy on the issue.

The application was made by lawyers for alleged hacker James Raj Arokiasamy, who was granted access to his lawyers M Ravi and Eugene Thuraisingham on Dec 3 last year, although he had been first brought before the court on Nov 5.

James Raj, 35, faces several charges, including defacing the Ang Mo Kio Town Council’s website last year under the “Messiah” moniker.

His lawyers yesterday argued that if an accused person were not allowed access to his lawyer by the time he is brought before a judge within 48 hours of his arrest, he would be deprived of his liberty to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice, which is guaranteed under the Constitution.

They also invited the apex court to clarify a 1994 ruling by the Court of Appeal, on what would constitute a “reasonable time” before an accused is granted access to counsel, given the comments made by a High Court Judge in January.

However, Deputy Public Prosecutor G Kannan disagreed that there was any lack of clarity in the law. Under the Constitution, “there is no immediate right of access to counsel upon the request of an arrested person”, he said.

He added that decisions of the courts following the 1994 ruling “have consistently reaffirmed and applied the principle that a person remanded for investigations must be granted the right to counsel after a ‘reasonable time’; the difference between ‘reasonable time’ and ‘immediate’ is stark”.

In January, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck — who heard and dismissed a similar application by James Raj’s lawyers — upheld that “reasonable time” must be given to the police to carry out investigations, in keeping with the 1994 ruling.

But in his ruling, Justice Choo questioned if the 1994 judgment had correctly interpreted a 1970s decision by former Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin on an Internal Security Act detention case — that an arrested person must be granted the right to counsel within a reasonable time after his arrest.

Justice Choo said it could be argued that the former Chief Justice did not mean that the police ought to have “reasonable time” for investigations, but that there must be “reasonable time” for any necessary or unavoidable delays caused by practical or administrative concerns, such as having to contact the lawyer chosen by the arrested person.

Justice Choo said that where access to counsel is denied, the police should prove that this is necessary.