Re Caplan: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel Denied in City Harvest Church Criminal Breach of Trust Case
In Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC, the High Court of Singapore dismissed an application for ad hoc admission of Mr. Jonathan Michael Caplan QC to represent Chew Eng Han in a criminal breach of trust case involving City Harvest Church funds. The court, presided over by V K Rajah JA, found no special reason to grant the admission, considering the nature of the factual and legal issues, the availability of local counsel, and other relevant circumstances. The Public Prosecutor, Attorney-General, and The Law Society of Singapore opposed the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to admit Jonathan Caplan QC as defense counsel in a criminal breach of trust case was denied due to lack of special reason.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | Applicant | Other | Application Dismissed | Lost | Pateloo Eruthiyanathan Ashokan, Sheryl Cher Ya Li |
| Chew Eng Han | Other | Individual | |||
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Christopher Ong Siu Jin, Joel Chen | ||
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Aurill Kam Su Cheun, Tan Zhongshan, Jurena Chan | ||
| The Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Christopher Anand Daniel, Harjean Kaur |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Pateloo Eruthiyanathan Ashokan | KhattarWong LLP |
| Sheryl Cher Ya Li | KhattarWong LLP |
| Christopher Ong Siu Jin | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Joel Chen | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Aurill Kam Su Cheun | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Tan Zhongshan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Jurena Chan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Christopher Anand Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Harjean Kaur | Advocatus Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Chew Eng Han was charged with criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts related to City Harvest Church funds.
- The charges involve the alleged misappropriation of funds through bond investments and falsified accounting entries.
- Chew Eng Han sought to engage Jonathan Michael Caplan QC as his defense counsel.
- The application for ad hoc admission was opposed by the Public Prosecutor, Attorney-General, and The Law Society of Singapore.
- Chew Eng Han had difficulty securing local Senior Counsel due to potential conflicts of interest.
- The court considered the nature of the factual and legal issues involved in the criminal case.
- The court assessed the availability of local counsel with appropriate experience.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC, Originating Summons No 44 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 75
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Commercial Affairs Department commenced investigations into City Harvest Church. | |
| Chew Eng Han charged in court with criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts. | |
| Chew Eng Han met with Nehal Harpreet Singh SC. | |
| Chew Eng Han met with Professor Walter Woon SC. | |
| Chew Eng Han met with Amarjeet Singh SC. | |
| Francis Xavier SC informed Chew Eng Han he might have to discharge himself. | |
| Francis Xavier SC confirmed he could not continue acting for Chew Eng Han. | |
| Chew Eng Han met with Nehal Harpreet Singh SC. | |
| Chew Eng Han met with Professor Walter Woon SC. | |
| Chew Eng Han met with Amarjeet Singh SC. | |
| Chew Eng Han's intention to engage a Queen’s Counsel was made known to the District Court. | |
| Francis Xavier SC officially discharged himself as Chew Eng Han’s counsel. | |
| Application filed to admit Jonathan Michael Caplan QC as advocate and solicitor. | |
| Application to admit Jonathan Michael Caplan QC as advocate and solicitor dismissed. | |
| First tranche of trial tentatively scheduled to begin. | |
| Second tranche of trial tentatively scheduled to begin. |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Senior Counsel
- Outcome: The court held that the application for ad hoc admission was not justified as the case did not present exceptional circumstances or a 'special reason' as required by the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'special reason' under s 15(2) of the Legal Profession Act
- Relationship between s 15(2) and the Legal Profession (Ad Hoc Admissions) Notification 2012
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on the merits of the criminal breach of trust charges, as the issue was whether to allow ad hoc admission of counsel.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Senior Counsel
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Falsification of Accounts
10. Practice Areas
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Religious Organizations
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Evpo Agsa” | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 662 | Singapore | Cited to explain the rationale of the rule against counsel becoming witnesses. |
| Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited for guidance on the procedure for ad hoc admission applications and the factors to be considered. |
| Re Flesch QC & Another | N/A | Yes | [1999] 1 HKLRD 506 | Hong Kong | Cited for the proposition that matters of public interest would suffice to show that a “special reason” existed, but deemed irrelevant to the local context. |
| Re an application of Gerald James Kay Cole, QC for admission as a barrister | N/A | Yes | [1985] HKLR 480 | Hong Kong | Cited for the proposition that matters of public interest would suffice to show that a “special reason” existed, but deemed irrelevant to the local context. |
| Re an application of Charles Gray for admission as a barrister | N/A | Yes | [1984] HKLR 367 | Hong Kong | Cited for the proposition that the need for the Accused to be given the best legal representation in his criminal defence was a matter of public interest, but deemed irrelevant to the local context. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 404 | Singapore | Cited for examples of what might constitute 'special reasons' for admitting Queen's Counsel in criminal cases, but deemed of limited assistance due to changes in the statutory framework. |
| Re Seed Nigel John QC | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the circumstances of the case must show a “special reason” for admission, but deemed of limited assistance due to changes in the statutory framework. |
| Cheam Tat Pang and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 161 | Singapore | Cited to show Mr. Caplan QC's familiarity with the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code. |
| Ng Chin Siau and others v How Kim Chuan | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 789 | Singapore | Cited to show that the interpretation of the phrase 'special reason' depends on the particular context in which it is used. |
| Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 265 | Singapore | Cited to show that the interpretation of the phrase 'special reason' depends on the particular context in which it is used. |
| Re How William Glen | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 357 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case with constitutional implications that might constitute a 'special reason', but deemed of limited assistance due to changes in the statutory framework. |
| Re Allan David Green QC | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 166 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the verdict holds significant repercussions not just for the individual accused but also for the way in which an entire section of the population orders their daily lives or the conduct of their business, but deemed of limited assistance due to changes in the statutory framework. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 41 r 5(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 38 r 2(2) |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed) r 64(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 409 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 477A | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Societies Act (Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Queen's Counsel
- Special Reason
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- City Harvest Church
- Legal Profession Act
- Notification Matters
- Local Counsel
- Conflict of Interest
- Criminal Proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Queen's Counsel
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- City Harvest Church
- Singapore Law
- Legal Profession Act
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure