| 词条 | Judicial system of Singapore |
| 释义 |
The full Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court as well as subordinate courts by the Constitution of Singapore. The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court exercises both original and appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction.[1] The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister. The prime minister must consult with the Chief Justice before recommending the judges. The current Chief Justice is Sundaresh Menon. In 2006, the subordinate courts initiated a pilot scheme to appoint specialist judges to the Bench. These judges will come from the legal profession and academia and the scheme is aimed at bringing additional expertise to the subordinate courts as well as giving practitioners and academics an insight to the workings of the judiciary of Singapore.[2] Jury trials were abolished in 1969 and the Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 1992 to allow for trials of capital offences to be heard before a single judge.[3] The Court of Appeal is Singapore's final court of appeal after the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London was abolished in April 1994. The president has the power to grant pardons on the advice of the cabinet.[4]Singapore practices the common law legal system, where the decisions of higher courts constitute binding precedent upon courts of equal or lower status within their jurisdiction, as opposed to the civil law legal system in the continental Europe. The current criminal code was preceded by the Indian Penal Code which was adopted when Singapore was a crown colony. In 2004, the US Department of State claimed that although Singapore's judicial system provides citizens with an efficient judicial process, the judiciary is largely compliant and the government often uses defamation suits or the threat of such actions to discourage public criticism and intimidate the press.[5] Judicial independence{{main|Judicial independence in Singapore}}Singapore has a reputation for fairness and impartiality in commercial law, and is a popular jurisdiction for arbitration and trial in Southeast Asia. The Canadian case of Oakwell Engineering v. Enernorth Industries called into question this impartiality and raised the issue of whether the judgments of Singaporean courts are enforceable outside Singapore, but claims of links between the judiciary, business and the executive arm in Singapore which were alleged to suggest a real risk of judicial bias were dismissed in appeals to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and Canadian Supreme Court.[6] The United States Department of State claims the President of Singapore and the Minister for Home Affairs have substantial de facto judicial power, leading "to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases." In addition, Singapore's "judicial officials, especially the Supreme Court, have close ties to the ruling party and its leaders".[5] The President appoints judges to the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and in consultation with the Chief Justice. The President also appoints subordinate court judges on the recommendation of the Chief Justice. Government leaders historically have used court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics, leading to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.[5] Notable cases include those against opposition leaders J. B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan. In 1997, Australian Q.C. Stuart Littlemore observed the proceedings of a high profile defamation suit filed by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong against Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).[7] This was followed by his ICJ report stating that the Singapore judiciary was compliant to the ruling People's Action Party (PAP),[8] observations which the Ministry of Law denied,[9] and the ICJ subsequently defended.[10] Littlemore's application to represent Chee Soon Juan in 2002 for another defamation suit was rejected by the High Court for his previous remarks about the judiciary that were seen as contemptuous and disrespectful.[11] On the other hand, Transparency International noted in its 2006 country study report on Singapore that truth was a defence to the "accusations and insinuations of nepotism and favouritism in government appointments" against government leaders that led to the defamation suits, and "[a]s such, if a serious accusation is made, the public hearing of these suits would give the defendant a prime opportunity to put forward the facts they allege. However, none of the defendants have proved the truth of their allegations."[12] Ranking14 September 2008 Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey reported Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst: Hong Kong's judicial system scored 1.45 on the scale (zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst); Singapore with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93), the Philippines (6.10), Malaysia (6.47), India (6.50), Thailand (7.00), China (7.25), Vietnam (8.10) and Indonesia (8.26).[13][14] In 2010, the Rule of Law Index by the World Justice Project ranked Singapore number one for access to civil justice in the high-income countries group.[15] See also
References1. ^{{cite web|title=Supreme Court of Judicature Act |url=http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A%224a6359f9-a3f3-45b9-aa01-c366b2b7c844%22%20Status%3Apublished%20Depth%3A0;rec=0 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927181417/http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-322&doctitle=SUPREME+COURT+OF+JUDICATURE+ACT%0A&date=latest&method=part |archivedate=27 September 2011 |publisher=Attorney-General of Singapore |accessdate=18 December 2013 |deadurl=yes |df= }} 2. ^{{cite web |title=Dean Tan Cheng Han S.C. '87 appointed Specialist Judge |url=http://law.nus.edu.sg/about_us/news/2006/newsChengHan.pdf |date=3 August 2006 |publisher=National University of Singapore |accessdate=18 December 2013}} 3. ^{{cite web|url=http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/default.aspx?pgID=39#M1|title=Supreme Court Singapore - History|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=Supreme Court of Singapore|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131016121211/http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/default.aspx?pgID=39#M1|archivedate=16 October 2013|dead-url=|accessdate=18 December 2013|section=}} 4. ^{{cite web|url=http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=172f4d6d-7909-4389-819d-57006fa99f12;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22cf2412ff-fca5-4a64-a8ef-b95b8987728e%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0#P1V-.|title=Constitution of the Republic of Singapore - Part V (The Government)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=Attorney-General of Singapore|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131218190003/http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p%3Bident%3D172f4d6d-7909-4389-819d-57006fa99f12%3Bpage%3D0%3Bquery%3DDocId%3A%22cf2412ff-fca5-4a64-a8ef-b95b8987728e%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0%3Brec%3D0#P1V-.|archivedate=18 December 2013|deadurl=yes|accessdate=18 December 2013|section=|df=}} 5. ^1 2 {{citation|title=Singapore|url=https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41659.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625213928/https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41659.htm|archivedate=25 June 2017|publisher=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, United States Department of State|date=28 February 2005}}. 6. ^K.C. Vijayan, "Payout Fight Over 'Biased Judiciary' Rejected: Firm's Final Bid to Canada's Highest Court Fails, so S'pore Court Judgment Stands", The Straits Times (27 January 2007). 7. ^{{citation|author=Richard Lloyd Parry|authorlink=Richard Lloyd Parry|title=Political storm over a teacup|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/political-storm-over-a-teacup-1234135.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212252/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/political-storm-over-a-teacup-1234135.html|archivedate=21 August 2017|newspaper=The Independent|location=London|date=4 October 1997}}. 8. ^{{citation|author=[Stuart Littlemore]|authorlink=Stuart Littlemore|title=ICJ condemns parody of justice in Singapore|url=https://www.icj.org/icj-condemns-parody-of-justice-in-singapore/|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160709111816/http://www.icj.org/icj-condemns-parody-of-justice-in-singapore/|archivedate=9 July 2016|publisher=International Commission of Jurists|date=11 September 1998}}. 9. ^{{citation|author=Warren Fernandez|title=QC's report made false statements, says Govt|url=http://www.singapore-window.org/1004st.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100616012759/http://singapore-window.org/1004st.htm|archivedate=16 June 2010|newspaper=The Straits Times (reproduced on Singapore Window)|date=3 October 1997}}. 10. ^{{citation|title=ICJ defends observer Littlemore's report|url=http://www.singapore-window.org/1023st.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130621155321/http://www.singapore-window.org/1023st.htm|archivedate=21 June 2013|newspaper=The Straits Times (reproduced on Singapore Window)|date=23 October 1997}}. 11. ^Re Littlemore Stuart QC, [https://web.archive.org/web/20170821211939/http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/22024-re-littlemore-stuart-qc [2002] SGHC 16], [2002] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 198, High Court (Singapore), archived from the original on 21 August 2017; {{citation|author=Mark Baker|title=Chee loses bid for help in case|url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/19/1019020708676.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170821212045/http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/19/1019020708676.html|archivedate=21 August 2017|newspaper=The Age|location=Melbourne|date=20 April 2002}}. 12. ^{{citation|author=Simon S.C. Tay|authorlink=Simon Tay|title=National Integrity Systems: Transparency International Country Study Report: Singapore 2006|url=http://www.transparency.org/content/download/12597/123955/file/Singapore_NIS_2006.pdf|format=PDF|location=Berlin|publisher=Transparency International|year=2006|pages=23–24}}. See also {{citation|author=Karen Blöchlinger|title=Primus Inter Pares: Is the Singapore Judiciary First among Equals?|journal=Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal|year=2000|volume=9|issue=3|pages=591–618}}. 13. ^afp.google.com/article, Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110521100223/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIkKvk-YnNQ1HVb2n_HUUMhncDLA |date=21 May 2011 }} 14. ^www.abs-cbnnews.com, Hong Kong has best judicial system in Asia: business survey 15. ^Channel NewsAsia Further reading
1 : Judicial branch of the Singapore Government |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。