Latest news with #SingaporeCourts
Straits Times
22-07-2025
- Straits Times
Woman evacuated from lift in Supreme Court building after falling glass triggers emergency halt
Find out what's new on ST website and app. At about 2pm, a glass panel from the building's facade fell and cracked a secondary glass roof. SINGAPORE - A woman was evacuated from a lift at the Supreme Court building on July 22 after falling glass triggered a safety mechanism that stopped the lift from operating. According to a Singapore Courts spokesperson, at about 2pm, a glass panel from the building's facade fell and cracked a secondary glass roof. A few glass fragments fell onto the roof of a lift car, triggering a safety mechanism that forced it to grind to a halt. The woman, a staff member at the court, was trapped in one of them, and was evacuated by a lift technician. She was not injured and has resumed her duties, said the spokesperson. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) received a call for assistance at 1 Supreme Court Lane, in the City Hall area, at about 2.40pm. One person was assessed for minor injuries, but declined to be taken to the hospital, the SCDF added. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Singaporeans aged 21 to 59 can claim $600 SG60 vouchers from July 22 Singapore Singaporeans continue to hold world's most powerful passport in latest ranking Singapore Miscalculation of MOH subsidies and grants led to $7m in overpayments, $2m in shortfalls Asia Malaysian aide's unresolved 2009 death tests govt's reform pledge despite DAP chief's apology Singapore 2 charged over alleged role in posting bail for man who later absconded Asia Japan looks at building first atomic reactor since Fukushima Business Chat with experts on brand media coverage at the latest Conversations with ST Singapore Ports and planes: The 2 Singapore firms helping to keep the world moving The damaged section of the glass roof measured roughly 2m by 2m in area, said the Singapore Courts spokesperson. No other structural damage has been identified, and the overall structure remains intact, added the spokesperson. 'We have promptly cordoned off the affected area, including all lifts situated under the glass roof, to ensure public safety.' Earlier in the afternoon, The Straits Times had observed workers putting sheets around the affected area. Inspections within the building are ongoing, but court hearings and other proceedings are carrying on as per usual, the Singapore Courts told The Straits Times. The Supreme Court building opened at its current location in early 2006, and houses 12 civil courts, eight criminal courts and three appellate courts. The Straits Times has contacted the Building and Construction Authority, and the police for more information. In April, four people were taken to hospital after a glass pane fell at The Star Vista mall in Buona Vista. Two others declined to be sent to hospital.
Straits Times
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
Witness stand not arena for humiliation in sex offence cases, judge reminds lawyers
Justice Vincent Hoong said: 'There is no honour in extracting testimony through degradation, nor is there skill in exploiting the emotional vulnerability of a witness.' SINGAPORE – During the trial of a man accused of raping his mother, his lawyer suggested that the woman 'could have easily avoided' the assault if she had just crossed her legs and 'shut the gates'. In another case, a lawyer stared inappropriately at the breasts of a molestation victim and asked her to stand up in an attempt to show that there would be 'motive' to molest her if she was wearing a low-cut top. These examples were cited in a recent speech by High Court Judge Vincent Hoong as cross-examination questions that have no place in the Singapore courts. Justice Hoong, who is also presiding judge of the State Courts, said: 'We would do well to remember that the courtroom is not a battleground, and the witness stand is not an arena for humiliation. 'There is no honour in extracting testimony through degradation, nor is there skill in exploiting the emotional vulnerability of a witness.' He was speaking to members of the Singapore Academy of Law at a private event held at the State Courts on July 2. The keynote address has been published on the Singapore Courts website. Justice Hoong's speech on navigating the sensitivities of cross-examining complainants in sexual offence cases is the latest reminder from the judiciary to the legal fraternity to be aware of the impact that the trial process can have on victims. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Priority for singles, higher quota for second-timer families to kick in from HDB's July BTO exercise Singapore Both Bukit Panjang LRT disruptions in July linked to newly installed power system: SMRT Singapore 1 in 3 vapes here laced with etomidate; MOH working with MHA to list it as illegal drug: Ong Ye Kung Asia Johor Bahru collision claims lives of e-hailing driver and Singapore passenger Sport Arsenal arrive in Singapore for pre-season matches with AC Milan and Newcastle Business Crypto exchange Tokenize to shut down Singapore operations Singapore More initiatives and support for migrant community announced at Racial Harmony Day event Singapore ComfortDelGro to discipline driver who flung relative's wheelchair out of taxi Most recently, in December 2024, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon emphasised the need for judges to take a more active supervisory role in the management of such cases, including the giving of evidence by complainants. This was followed in January by the introduction of measures, such as the use of a checklist at the pretrial stage, to identify contentious issues so that the judge can shut out irrelevant lines of questioning during the trial . In his speech, Justice Hoong noted that judicial guidance in recent years has reinforced and clarified the legislative safeguards against improper questioning. When conducted within proper bounds, robust cross-examination is essential to ensure that the defence can put forward its case fully and fairly, he said. However, cross-examination can be traumatising if conducted without appropriate sensitivity. 'It is therefore incumbent upon us, as judges and counsel, to approach this process with care, precision and a heightened awareness of its potential impact,' he added. Justice Hoong said questions that reinforce outdated notions, such as the expectation that a victim would put up physical resistance or immediately report the crime, can cross the line into being gratuitously harmful, irrelevant or demeaning. 'It is the judge's task to discern and draw that distinction with care and vigilance,' he said. However, lawyers must also be mindful to ensure that their questions are appropriate and relevant. 'Cross-examination is not an opportunity for theatricality nor for an advocate to demonstrate a flair for antagonistic or aggressive, repetitive and oppressive questioning,' he said. He listed past cases where lawyers' questions impugned the complainant's morality, relied on harmful stereotypes and victim-shaming tactics, tried to link the complainant's attire to the accused's 'motive', or suggested that the assault could have been avoided if the complainant had not parted her legs. Justice Hoong added: 'It is entirely possible to challenge the reliability and credibility of a witness in a way which is measured, respectful and upholds the decorum of the court.' Lawyer Luo Ling Ling, who has defended clients accused of committing sexual offences, told The Straits Times: 'I fight all the way for my clients, but I'm also in favour of protecting sexual assault victims. Both objectives can be achieved if you consciously cross-examine the witnesses with respect and restraint.' Ms Luo, who is the managing director of her eponymous firm, said she learnt this 'the hard way' in a case where three girls had accused their stepfather of molesting them. The lawyer said she did not cross the line, but one of the victims broke down when questioned about the contradictions between her police statement and her court testimony. The victim was testifying via a camera, and those in the courtroom did not realise that she was crying until the counsellor who was with her informed the judge, Ms Luo recalled. '(In) hindsight, I would have still done the same cross-examination and asked those hard questions, but I would have used a gentle tone,' she mused.
Singapore Law Watch
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Singapore Law Watch
Courts actively foster transparency and public trust: Forum
Courts actively foster transparency and public trust: Forum Source: Straits Times Article Date: 18 Jun 2025 Beyond making court hearings accessible, the Singapore Courts are committed to bridging the gap and enhancing public understanding of their work through various initiatives. We thank Mr Ethan Tan for his Forum letter, 'Encourage more people to attend public hearings' (June 13). We agree that open court hearings are vital for transparency and public trust in our judiciary. In today's digital age where diverse narratives proliferate, it is even more crucial that the public understands the work of our courts. Witnessing judicial processes first-hand can demystify legal proceedings and foster a more informed citizenry. To increase public awareness of open court hearings, we actively use SG Courts social media platforms (YouTube, Instagram and TikTok) to provide videos and guides. These resources, with over 360,000 views, offer insights on courtroom decorum and personal accounts of open justice. We are also simplifying information on hearing schedules on the SG Courts portal to address challenges laypeople might face, and will consider Mr Tan's suggestion to enhance court signage. Beyond making court hearings accessible, the Singapore Courts are committed to bridging the gap and enhancing public understanding of our work through various initiatives. Our website hosts all Supreme Court written judgments since 2000, many with summaries for lay readers. Our official WhatsApp channel provides concise summaries of notable judicial decisions for over 17,000 subscribers. In 2024, our 'Conversations with the Community' series engaged a wider audience as judges explored various aspects of our work. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon kick-started the series, explaining the courts' dual role (adjudicative and systemic) and the crucial importance of access to justice. Following seven sessions, we plan to consolidate this material into a freely available e-book. Our student outreach programmes actively engage young people, including a partnership with Kiss92 FM to reach 10,000 students. Our annual 'A Day in Court' features fireside chats with judges and mock court role-playing sessions. Additionally, our 'Justice Awareness @ Heartlands' community outreach initiative brings legal education directly to local communities; a recent session in Woodlands focused on family violence and harassment. In 2025, we will also hold open houses at the Family Justice Courts and Small Claims Tribunals to foster greater public familiarity with their roles. Finally, the media plays a crucial role in explaining court cases in layman terms, and we continue to work closely with it. We remain committed to proactive and transparent communication to foster public understanding and trust in our justice system. Michelle Chiang Director, Outreach and Engagement Singapore Courts Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
AsiaOne
13-06-2025
- AsiaOne
Man, 39, accused of housebreaking jumps bail, arrest warrant issued, Singapore News
A Chinese national facing charges for breaking into a private residence and stealing over $570,000 worth of jewellery has jumped bail. An arrest warrant has been issued to Long Zhihua, 39, after he failed to turn up for a pre-trial conference on May 23. In response to AsiaOne's queries, the Singapore Courts said that Long has been uncontactable since April 5, four days after he was granted bail. Long, a member of a housebreaking syndicate, had broken into a home on Windsor Park Road on June 21, 2024, with his accomplice, Luo Changchang, 44. They were arrested five days after the heist, before they had planned to fly back to China on June 29. Several stolen items were found in their hotel room in Geylang, but the victim, a 53-year-old woman, still suffered a loss as more than $390,000 in jewellery remains missing. According to court documents, Long and Luo initially pleaded guilty last December and were awaiting sentencing, but retracted their plea, prompting the court to schedule a pre-trial conference. Long, who had been granted bail, failed to show up in court on April 25. He did turn not turn up to the rescheduled pre-trial conference on May 23, which led to the arrest warrant being issued. Meanwhile, Luo has remained in remand since his arrest. His case is scheduled to be be heard again on July 25. Offenders convicted of housebreaking can be jailed up to 10 years, and fined. [[nid:697687]] chingshijie@
New Paper
10-05-2025
- Business
- New Paper
Ong Beng Seng granted permission to visit 3 more cities while overseas
Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, who is currently overseas, has been given permission to travel to three more cities but the agreed-upon duration of his trip remains unchanged. Ong, who is facing charges in a case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran, had earlier been granted approval by the court to leave Singapore from April 28 to May 16 to travel to the US, Britain and Italy for work and medical reasons. On May 9, a Singapore Courts spokeswoman said in response to queries from The Straits Times that the court approved Ong's application to vary some of the destinations to include Venice and Bari in Italy, and Dubrovnik, a city in Croatia. These three cities were added to the list of locations that Ong had said he was expected to visit, which includes London, Boston, Miami, New York and Florence. The spokeswoman added that the terms of his bail while he is overseas remain unchanged. As part of the conditions, the 79-year-old Malaysian must provide the full details of where he will be staying and his contact numbers to the investigating officer (IO) handling his case or an officer acting under the latter. Ong must also remain contactable by the IO and surrender his passport to the officer within 24 hours upon return to Singapore. His current bail of $800,000 has been doubled to $1.6 million. In 2024, the billionaire was charged with one count of abetment under Section 165, which makes it an offence for a public servant to accept anything of value from any person with whom he is involved in an official capacity without payment or with inadequate payment. Ong is known as the man who brought Formula One (F1) to Singapore in 2008 - the first night race in the sport's history. Iswaran was chairman of the F1 steering committee and the Government's chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters related to the race. The two men had worked in the mid-2000s to convince then Formula One Group chief executive Bernie Ecclestone to make Singapore the venue for the sport's first night race. According to court documents, the businessman in December 2022 allegedly instigated Iswaran's flight on Ong's private plane from Singapore to Doha. The flight was valued at US$7,700 (S$10,400), according to court documents. Ong is also said to have arranged for Iswaran a one-night stay at Four Seasons Hotel Doha, valued at $4,737.63, and a business class flight from Doha to Singapore, valued at $5,700. He had allegedly alerted Iswaran that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had seized the flight manifest for the December 2022 trip, prompting Iswaran to ask the tycoon to bill him for the flight to avoid investigations. For this alleged offence, he was given a second charge - the abetment of obstruction of justice. Iswaran, 62, faced a total of 35 charges, most of which involved Ong. Iswaran was sentenced to 12 months' jail in October 2024 for, among other things, obtaining a number of valuable items from Ong. ST earlier reported that Ong intends to plead guilty. His next pre-trial conference is on June 10. If convicted of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, an offender can be jailed for up to two years, fined or both. If convicted of abetting obstruction of justice, an offender can be jailed for up to seven years, fined or both.
