Kassimatis & Fitzgerald v Attorney-General: Ad Hoc Admission for Constitutional Challenge to Misuse of Drugs Act
The Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed appeals by Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC, who sought ad hoc admission to represent Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, Saminathan Selvaraju, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, and Lingkesvaran Rajendaren in challenging the constitutionality of sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore opposed the admission. The court found that the Appellants did not demonstrate a 'special reason' to justify their admission, given existing precedents and the lack of material impact their representation would have on the case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed applications by Kassimatis KC and Fitzgerald KC for ad hoc admission to challenge the Misuse of Drugs Act's constitutionality.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed | Other | Individual | No order as to costs | Neutral | |
| Lingkesvaran Rajendaren | Other | Individual | No order as to costs | Neutral | |
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal dismissed | Won | |
| Theodoros Kassimatis KC | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Edward Fitzgerald KC | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Theong Li Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers Poh Hui Jing Claire of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Other | Individual | No order as to costs | Neutral | |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Other | Individual | No order as to costs | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Anand s/o Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Saadhvika Jayanth | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Hay Hung Chun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Theong Li Han | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Poh Hui Jing Claire | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC applied for ad hoc admission to represent four individuals convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The Appellants sought to challenge the constitutionality of sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore objected to the Appellants' admission.
- The High Court dismissed the Appellants' applications, leading to the appeal.
- The Court of Appeal ruled that the Appellants could not address the court on the merits of their appeals.
- The Claimants had previously filed applications and appeals challenging the constitutionality of the MDA, which were unsuccessful.
- Local lawyers had declined to represent the Claimants due to a lack of merit in their case.
5. Formal Citations
- Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 16 and 17 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 49
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 enacted. | |
| Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 enacted. | |
| Legal Profession (Ad Hoc Admissions) Notification 2012 enacted. | |
| HC/OA 480/2022 filed. | |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General [2022] SGHC 291 issued. | |
| CA 2 deemed withdrawn. | |
| CA/SUM 8/2023 filed. | |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General [2023] 1 SLR 1437 issued. | |
| SUM 16 filed. | |
| OA 696 filed by Mr Kassimatis KC. | |
| OA 811 filed by Mr Fitzgerald KC. | |
| Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another matter [2024] SGHC 24 issued. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another appeal [2024] SGCA 36 issued. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the Appellants did not satisfy the 'special reason' requirement for ad hoc admission.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Special Reason Requirement
- Requirements under s 15(1) of the Legal Profession Act
- Notification Matters Stage
- Constitutionality of s 18(1) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the provisions, as the Appellants were denied ad hoc admission.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Presumption of Innocence
- Evidential Burden
- Compatibility with Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution
8. Remedies Sought
- Ad Hoc Admission to Practice as Advocates and Solicitors
- Declaration that Sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act are Unconstitutional
- Prohibitory order against the execution of the death sentences upon the Claimants.
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Ad Hoc Admission
- Constitutional Challenge
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Criminal Appeals
- Judicial Review
- Legal Profession Regulation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 24 | Singapore | The High Court dismissed the Appellants’ applications for ad hoc admission. |
| Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 36 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal held that the Appellants could not address the court on the merits of their appeals. |
| Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited for the legal framework to be applied in the assessment of whether foreign senior counsel should be admitted for the purposes of a given case under s 15 of the LPA. |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 291 | Singapore | The High Court dismissed the application in OA 480. |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 1437 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal dismissed SUM 8. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 66 | Singapore | Cited for the historical development of the legislation governing the Special Reason Stage. |
| Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited for the historical development of the legislation governing the Special Reason Stage. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 404 | Singapore | Discusses the requirement of “special reason” in the context of ad hoc admission. |
| Re Seed Nigel John QC | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Discusses the requirement of “special reason” in the context of ad hoc admission. |
| Re Lasry Lex QC | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 68 | Singapore | Discusses the requirement of “special reason” in the context of ad hoc admission. |
| Re Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PC QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 921 | Singapore | Discusses the requirement of “special reason” in the context of ad hoc admission. |
| Re Fordham, Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 272 | Singapore | Discusses the requirement of “special reason” in the context of ad hoc admission. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Held that a provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, which shifted the burden of proof to the accused upon proof of certain facts, was not contrary to Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Referenced Parliamentary intent and held that it was permissible to invoke the two presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA together. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Made clear that the presumptions under ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA are evidential tools that operate to presume specific facts. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Made clear that the presumptions under ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA are evidential tools that operate to presume specific facts. |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 907 | Singapore | The presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA have also been used together in several past decisions. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | The presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA have also been used together in several past decisions. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | The presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA have also been used together in several past decisions. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | It would be impossible to have a functioning legal system if all legal decisions were open to unceasing challenge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 452 | Singapore | It would be impossible to have a functioning legal system if all legal decisions were open to unceasing challenge. |
| Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 635 | Singapore | It would be impossible to have a functioning legal system if all legal decisions were open to unceasing challenge. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | For this court to grant permission and exercise its power of review under ss 394H and 394I of the CPC, there are stringent requirements which require that the Claimants adduce sufficient material on which the court may conclude that there has likely been a miscarriage of justice in their respective criminal matters. |
| Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Lawyers may be held to account for abusing the process of the court by taking manifestly bad or ill-conceived points. |
| Re De Lacy Richard QC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR(R) 23 | Singapore | The real parties in interest are the Claimants, and ordinarily, they should bear the costs. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad Hoc Admission
- King’s Counsel
- Legal Profession Act
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Constitutionality
- Presumption of Innocence
- Special Reason
- Notification Matters Stage
- Judicial Review
- Evidential Burden
15.2 Keywords
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Constitutional Challenge
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Legal Profession Act
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Ad Hoc Admission | 95 |
| Constitutional Law | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Criminal Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure