Singapore Advocacy Training Goes Overseas

For several years now, the Advocacy Committee and the trainers assembled by the Committee have conducted advocacy training for members of the local Bar and at the Postgraduate Law Course. It was our pleasure to receive an invitation from the Sabah Law Association to send a team of our trainers to Sabah earlier this year to conduct an appellate advocacy training programme for the Malaysian lawyers there.

Mr N Sreenivasan reviewing the teaching method with the Singapore and Malaysian trainers

A core group of Singapore trainers led by Mr N Sreenivasan (Chairman of the Advocacy Committee) and comprising Mr KS Rajah, SC; Mr Sant Singh; Mr Leslie Chew, SC; Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, SC; Mr Vinodh Coomaraswamy, SC; Mr Andrew Ong; Mr Sushil Nair and I, was hosted by the Sabah Law Association earlier this year from 16 to 18 March where we conducted an Appellate Advocacy Workshop. The Workshop was conducted at the Kota Kinnabalu High Court.

A group photograph of the trainers and participants at the end of the workshop

The Advocacy Committee developed materials exclusively for use at this training programme and these materials comprised three hypothetical problems based on Singapore court cases. The first hypothetical case concerned an appeal on a stay application based on forum non conveniens. The Malaysian lawyers participating in the programme were required to apply the principles set out in the well known case of Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern [1995] 3 SLR 97 to the hypothetical problem and address the trainers acting as the Appellate Court.

The second hypothetical problem contained facts loosely based on the Singapore case of The Sunrise Crane [2004] SGCA 42. In this exercise, the participants were required to examine the grounds of the trial judge’s decision and address the Appellate Court as to why the decision was to be upheld or reversed. In particular, the participants were required to make submissions as to whether the duty of care was to be extended on the facts of the hypothetical case and whether there was a breach of the duty. 

Singapore trainers deep in thought

The third hypothetical problem was an appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeal relating to a charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. In this instance, the participants were invited to challenge or defend the trial judge’s findings on the identification of the accused and inferences that were made by the trial judge as recorded in the grounds of decision.

The programme started on the first day with the Singapore trainers introducing the training method to various senior Malaysian lawyers who were identified to be trainers for the programme. The senior Malaysian lawyers were trained on the six-step approach of Headnote, Playback, Rationale, Prescription, Demonstration and Explanation, and an intensive role-playing and training programme for all trainers took place on the first day. Following that, over the next two days, the Singapore trainers together with the Malaysian trainers, conducted the training sessions with the participants comprising both senior and junior members of the Sabah Bar.

A visit by guests during the tea break, including Datuk Ian Chin, Senior Resident Judge, High Court, Kota Kinabalu (2nd from left)

The Sabah Law Association’s Organising Committee took great efforts to ensure that the Singapore trainers and their accompanying family members were comfortable in every respect, and their hospitality and warmth were deeply felt and appreciated by the Singapore contingent. We stayed at the Sutera Harbour and the Malaysian lawyers, including the President of the Sabah Law Association, were excellent hosts in arranging dinner in the evenings where we enjoyed some excellent Sabahan cuisine.

A Malaysian participant addressing Mr Leslie Chew, SC sitting as the appellate judge

The Advocacy Committee this year will focus its efforts in building upon the impeccable work put in by previous committees under the steady stewardship of Mr Chelva Rajah, SC and Mr Sant Singh. The continued involvement of other eminent and experienced advocacy trainers such as Mr KS Rajah, SC; Mr Leslie Chew, SC; and Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, SC has helped in the recruitment and expansion of a competent core of dedicated trainers this year, and the quality of the candidates who have come forward to join the core of trainers this year has been especially gratifying.

As you read this article, many trainers would have sacrificed precious time over the weekends to conduct advocacy training for the pupils and students at this year’s Postgraduate Law Course in the months of July and August, for which the Advocacy Committee is extremely grateful. 

Role play and demonstration by Mr Andrew Ong acting as counsel before Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, SC acting as the judge during the first day of the workshop attended by the Malaysian trainers

It is the long-term objective and vision of the Advocacy Committee to create a culture amongst practitioners where advocacy is a shared art and passion, practised competently all of the time, often brilliantly, and always with steadfast integrity and courtesy.

The Advocacy Committee will endeavour to continue to build upon its current programme of sending a core number of its trainers to Melbourne each year to undergo the excellent training courses conducted by the Australian Advocacy Institute run by Professor George Hampel, QC and Ms Felicity Hampel, QC, who have elevated the teaching of advocacy to an art form. More efforts will also be made to explore teaching opportunities beyond the shores of Singapore, such as the programme conducted in Sabah
this year.

Daniel Koh  

Advocacy Committee

The Law Society of Singapore