Improving access to justice in Singapore

Singaporeans' access to justice took a major step forward with the announcement in Parliament on Monday that a public defender's office (PDO), which will be fully funded by the Government, is targeted to start providing legal aid by the year end to needy Singaporeans who face criminal charges but cannot afford to hire their own lawyers. The development is significant because it breaks with the conservative wisdom that it would be incongruous to use public funds to defend a person accused by the State, whose legal arm is funded by the same public. However, since only a court can decide on who is guilty or innocent, there is no reason to withhold from an accused person the public resources which could decide the case in his or her favour. Of course, the accused have access to lawyers whose task is to represent their client as best they can. But not all accused are of equal economic standing. The latest initiative should help level the economic playing field even further so that a lack of means does not stand in the way of access to justice.

The PDO will co-deliver criminal legal aid alongside the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, which has operated since 1985 through a programme initiated by the Law Society and senior lawyers. The scheme, which is administered now by the Law Society Pro Bono Services, has been co-funded by the Government since 2015. Now, the PDO will be established as a department under the Law Ministry, similar to the Legal Aid Bureau, which provides help in civil cases, and the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office.

Notably, the PDO will have full-time lawyers as employees. It is to be hoped that this enhancement will attract fresh graduates and younger lawyers, and indeed mid-career hires, to the role of public defenders. Much as public prosecutors uphold one pillar of the law - the prosecutorial side - public defenders would now strengthen the corresponding pillar of defence to the enhancement of justice as a whole. Lawyers in Singapore enjoy lucrative prospects in commercial and related fields, and that is not unexpected in a prospering economy. However, it is essential that legal talent keeps flowing into criminal law too, where crucial issues of justice are also decided, often for those at the bottom rungs of society.

One important consideration in the PDO is the resultant cost to the public purse. The income ceiling for qualification for criminal legal aid will be raised, and the scope of coverage will be expanded. Since these steps could be expected to only increase the total caseload, it is important that Singapore does not follow in the wake of legal jurisdictions where the costs of public defence are prohibitive. The abuse of criminal legal aid would defeat its progressive purpose of extending legal aid to those most in need of it. But the scheme is nevertheless one whose time has come.