Topic 21 and 22: Access to Justice Flashcards
What is the adversarial advocate approach?
Focus is on the lawyer’s role as the client’s most loyal fan.
Lawyers’ ethics are governed by his role as advocate in adversarial legal process. Partisanship, loyalty and non-accountability.
Lawyers tend to consider how different legal options will affect the client’s chance of winning.
Lawyers are responsible for advocating their client’s interests as zealously as possible within the boundaries of law.
What is the responsible lawyer approach?
Focus is on the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court.
Lawyers’ ethics are governed by the role of facilitating the public administration of justice according to law in the public interest.
Personal moral beliefs are generally irrelevant - focus is on duties as an officer of the court.
Lawyers are responsible for making the law work as fairly and justly as possible.
What is the moral activist approach?
Focus is on the individual’s own convictions about justice - and the lawyer role merely being a position to bring about the individual’s idea of justice.
Lawyer should take advantage of their position to improve justice through cause lawyering.
Persuade clients of the moral thing to do and withdraw if client wants something else.
Lawyer may accept a case only on a condition that it takes a certain shape.
What is the ethics of care appproach?
Focus is on an ethical idea of preserving relationships and reducing harm amongst people - with the lawyer role merely being another (meaningful) relationship with the client.
Lawyers should focus on preserving relationships and avoiding harm.
Lawyers tend to consider the psychological and relational consequences of different legal options.
More likely to look for non-adversarial ways to resolve disputes and preserve relationships
What is the ethics of care appproach?
Focus is on an ethical idea of preserving relationships and reducing harm amongst people - with the lawyer role merely being another (meaningful) relationship with the client.
Lawyers should focus on preserving relationships and avoiding harm.
Lawyers tend to consider the psychological and relational consequences of different legal options.
More likely to look for non-adversarial ways to resolve disputes and preserve relationships
What happened to David Marshall in 1971?
He represented four detained newspaper executives under ISA.
He argued for habeas corpus, which is a writ of protection against unlawful imprisonment.
Marshall was disciplined for professional misconduct and suspended from practice for 6 months.
Some people felt that this was also connected to his role in LSS’s opposition to the abolition of juries.
What happened to TT Rajah in 1970s?
He represented political detainees under ISA and also represented Barisan activists.
He, like Marshall, argued for habeas corpus, a writ of protection against unlawful imprisonment.
TT Rajah was disciplined for professional misconduct and suspended for two years.
Later, he was detained without trial.
What happened to the LSS when it argued against giving state control over foreign press in Singapore?
In 1986, the LSS questioned the proposed legislation over foreign press.
During the televised Select Committee hearings, the LSS was intimidated and cross-examined
8 months after the hearings, two members of the LSS were detained without trial for being part of a Marxist conspiracy
For almost twenty years after the hearings, the LSS stayed out of the public domain.
What happened to the LSS when it argued against abolishing jury trials in Singapore?
In 1969, the LSS questioned the move to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to abolish jury trials.
During the Select Committee hearings, the Committee appeared to intimidate and accuse the LSS of breaching the boundary between law and politics.
The Committee characterised the LSS’s submissions as a political document and accused David Marshall, a member of the LSS, of politicking.
There is no equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Singapore. True or false?
True true. No ACLU equivalent in Singapore due to fear of state clamp down.
What is the first wave of access to justice?
State-led legal aid
In 1956, the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance was passed in Singapore. It provided for legal aid in civil cases, criminal cases, as well as legal advice. However, Part II on criminal legal aid was never implemented.
In 1965, US established its own state-run legal aid program. This was part of the war on poverty in the US.
What is the problem with the first wave of access to justice?
Expensive, since taxpayers pay cost
Social justice gaps, what if we think that state laws are unjust?
What is the second wave of access to justice?
Public interest law
People sought to change the law to make the law more meaningful.
Can sue people in class action.
Less formal dispute resolution processes.
Treat problems more holistically in criminal justice.
What is the problem with the second wave of access to justice?
Achieving resolution at the cost of not protecting parties’ rights
What is the third wave of access to justice?
Reform of legal services market
More face to face community justice
Focus on mediation and ADR
Allow people other than lawyers to provide legal services (not advice, but services).
Allow lawyers to advertise themselves
What is the fourth wave of access to justice?
Remove fixed fees
What triggered the four waves of access to justice?
It started with the recognition by the state that they had an obligation to provide an effective system of courts for people.
What does access to justice mean?
Accessibility of court procedures
Accessibility to legal information to lawyers and laypersons
Availability of legal representation in trials/legal advice
Access to more informal processes to resolve disputes
“Access to justice has been understood differently at different times. Waves of access to justice focused on different aspects”. Is this statement true or false?
True.
The Legal Aid and Advice Bill, introduced in 1995, does not include provisions in criminal legal aid. Is this statement true or false?
True