Accused persons currently getting criminal legal assistance aren’t permitted to set foot in Singapore’s jackpot rooms or casinos, nor to gain access to their Singapore Pools wagering accounts as long as they have representation, according to the latest rule which came into force on April 1st.
New rule:
This fresh regulation has an effect on accused individuals getting defense assistance under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (Clas) and the Public Defender’s Office (PDO), based on what the PDO said on its online site. In addition, Pro Bono SG, a charity, manages the Clas.
Relatedly, the said persons will be permitted to enter the gambling facilities for a fortnight after they stop receiving legal assistance or in a situation when their case is settled in the court, a step saluted by criminal attorneys.
Commenting on the exclusion, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), commented that the aforementioned exclusion is intended to “safeguard the financial situation of aid recipients, in view of their financially vulnerable circumstances.” However, he also added: “All existing recipients of criminal defense aid are affected by this exclusion. However, only a small number have records of visiting the casinos, jackpot machine rooms, or have an online gambling account with Singapore Pools.”
As for PDO in particular, it is a department managed by the Ministry of Law and was established in the last month of 2022. Additionally, it offers help to the state’s permanent residents and citizens who have up to a maximum of 35th revenue percentile. Customers need to also go through a merits test to evaluate whether they’ll appeal against their case, have reasonable grounds to defend their case or have use from representation.
On a related note, at the debut of the PDO, Lawrence Wong, the Minister of Finance, and the Deputy Prime Minister commented that one thing of utmost importance to an efficient and fair legal system is access to justice and the provision of public lawyers will expand such access to those accused of a crime that can’t pay for legal counsel.
Furthermore, public attorneys don’t deal with particular kinds of crimes involving those linked to terrorism, syndicated and organized crime, and gambling. As for Pro Bono attorneys are accessible from Clas, which also covers crimes involving money-lending and represents foreigners, contrary to the PDO. In addition, the government has funded 75% of Clas as of 2015.
A timely move:
Attorneys who spoke with The Straights Times commented that the exclusion came at exactly the right time to put a stop to possible abuse of the system. They pointed out that the recent debut of the PDO signified that extra money from taxpayers was being utilized into offering legal assistance.
In this regard, Josephus Tan, founder of Invictus Law, commented: “It doesn’t really align if the client cannot afford legal representation but can afford to buy Toto.”
Also, in an interview with The Straights Times in 2023, Singapore Pools commented that half of its overall business is now generated online. This involves the greater part of the sports wagering.
Criminal legal assistance is subject to abuse as any other system, and the exclusion move represents the right step in making sure that public funds are held accountable, according to Mr Tan. He also added: “After all, the public might wonder why the state is using taxpayers’ money to fund a person charged with a crime and cannot afford legal representation, but yet has money to gamble.”
Ramesh Tiwary, a criminal attorney, agreed: “If other people in society are making sacrifices, for example, the lawyer, the taxpayers, or someone else who could have benefited from legal aid, then the recipients shouldn’t be seen as taking advantage of it.”
The reason the exclusion order took effect on April 1 and not earlier:
Answering the question of why the exclusion regulation only came into force on April 1, the spokesperson for MinLaw replied that it was the date after the needed legislative amendments were introduced and after the PDO was operationalized. He also pointed out that since 2013, the Government has been utilizing an identical approach for existing receivers of state subsidies, civil legal assistance and social assistance since 2013.
Advocates agree that the reason for the gambling exclusion is probably not abuse. It’s more like a safeguard because public spending on legal assistance has increased, according to The Straights Times.