Media Release: State Courts Workplan 2018 “Shaping tomorrow’s justice”

1 The State Courts held their annual Workplan Seminar this morning at the State Courts Auditorium.

2 In his Keynote Address, the Honourable Justice See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts, unveiled the theme of the State Courts Workplan 2018. “Shaping Tomorrow’s Justice” reflects the State Courts’ continuous quest to prepare and be ready for the opportunities and challenges presented by the changing landscape and environment that they operate in. The initiatives that the State Courts are introducing in 2018 are, accordingly, underpinned by three broad themes. The themes centre on ensuring that the foundations that the State Courts have built over the years remain strong, and continue to be strengthened and built upon for addressing the needs of the people they serve.

3 The initiatives that were introduced under each theme are:

(A) Staying responsive in an evolving landscape

(i) Pre-action protocols for town council prosecutions
- Two pre-action protocols for non-payment of service and conservancy charges and breaches of town council by-laws, providing a framework for town councils to negotiate and engage with an offender, before initiating criminal proceedings as a last resort

(ii) FRiends ENgaging and Supporting (“FRENS”) scheme
- A befriender programme that links offenders sentenced to imprisonment terms of less than 12 months with volunteers who will accompany the offenders in their rehabilitation journey Page 2

(iii) Consolidated management of volunteer mediators
- Centralised management of State Courts’ volunteer mediators to enhance parity in terms of the volunteers’ contributions, fulfilment requirements, awards and recognition

(iv) Capacity-building for Judicial Officers and Court Administrators
- A structured framework to enhance Judges’ bench skills and to develop their adaptiveness, and initiatives to develop the skill sets and enhance the professional development of Court Administrators

(B) Refining court processes
(i) “Documents-only” civil trials and assessments of damages
- An efficient, cost-effective and time-saving option for litigants to conduct their civil trials and assessment of damages hearings with documents only

(ii) Pre-action protocol for defamation actions
- A pre-action framework to guide parties on the conduct of their defamation suits

(iii) Practitioner’s Guide to Assessment of Damages in Defamation Actions
- The first local publication which tracks all the defamation awards made in the Supreme Court and State Courts from 2006 for lawyers, litigants and the Courts to use as a reference

(iv) Additional dispute resolution tool – Conciliation
- Another alternative dispute resolution tool to help parties reach an optimal solution for their disputes through facilitation by a Judge-conciliator

(v) Facilitating early resolution of criminal cases through Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Extending judge-led mediation and neutral evaluation to minor regulatory offences that involve straightforward and less complex issues of law to facilitate an early resolution of such cases Page 3

(vi) Streamlining Magistrate’s Complaint process
- A one-stop centre for Magistrate’s Complaints for the complainant to have a holistic view of the options and support available for dealing with his complaint
- An interactive online self-assessment tool to guide potential complainants in assessing if the Magistrate’s Complaint process is the appropriate forum to address their grievances

(C) Enhancing user experience

(i) i-connect @ State Courts
- A business centre with meeting and self-service facilities for court users, which also serves as a test-bed for a similar set-up in the new State Courts Towers; also houses the family-connect @ State Court set up to assist families of offenders facing imprisonment terms

(ii) Speech Transcription System
- An instant transcription system that recognises human voice and transcribes speech and oral evidence into text in real time, allowing parties and the Courts to conduct their cases in a more effective and expeditious manner

4 The details of the initiatives are available in the attached factsheets.

Issued by: State Courts, Singapore
Date: 9 March 2018

Enclosed:
(i) Keynote Address by the Honourable Justice See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts
(ii) Factsheets on key initiatives 

For further information or clarification, please contact:
(i) Ms Michelle Chiang, Assistant Director, Communications Directorate Tel: 6435 5179 / 9722 6139 Email: michelle_chiang@statecourts.gov.sg

(ii) Mr Bryan Jacob, Executive, Communications Directorate Tel: 6435 5088 / 9722 6139 Email: bryan_jacob@statecourts.gov.sg 

State Courts Workplan 2018
“Shaping Tomorrow’s Justice” 

Factsheet on Key Initiatives

(A) Staying responsive in an evolving landscape

(i) Pre-action protocols for town council prosecutions 

1 The Town Councils Act (TCA) provides for certain regulatory offences to be prosecuted under the criminal process. These offences (“TCA offences”) generally relate to the following breaches under the TCA :

a. Non-payment of service and conservancy charges (S&CC), an offence under section 39(7) of the TCA; and

b. Breach of any by-laws of a town council, an offence under section 24(9) of the TCA. The most common breaches prosecuted in the State Courts are:

i. Unlawful parking; and
ii. Obstruction of common property.

2 The above TCA offences are generally not serious regulatory offences given that they involve low moral culpability and low measure of harm to society, and are punishable with fines only. These TCA offences accounted for over 95 per cent of all the town council cases filed in the State Courts in 2017. However, approximately 86 per cent of these criminal cases were resolved by composition or settlement and the charges were then withdrawn, by which time a considerable amount of time and public resources would have been expended.

3 The non-payment of S&CC form the bulk of the TCA charges filed in the State Courts. Although criminal prosecution can be used to deter the non-payment of S&CC, it may not be the most appropriate recourse. There may be underlying causes to the non-payments that could be addressed in a more efficient manner, so that those who have genuine difficulties in paying their S&CC can be better managed, and prosecutorial and judicial resources can be more efficiently deployed.

4 Notably, the TCA allows for unpaid S&CC to be recovered in a civil action through the Small Claims Tribunals. There is therefore a viable alternative to criminal prosecution to achieve what is essentially a debt recovery and settlement objective. This same purpose can be met just as, if not more, quickly and effectively, and probably at a lower cost as well. Some town councils have already begun to appreciate this, particularly since the Community Justice and Tribunals System (an online case filing and management system for small claims and neighbour disputes) enables such claims to be conveniently filed and managed online.

5 To encourage the use of non-prosecutorial alternatives for managing the non-payment of S&CC and/or breach of town council by-laws, the State Courts will be implementing two pre-action protocols for town council prosecutions:

a. Pre-prosecution protocol for cases involving the failure to pay S&CC; and

b. Pre-prosecution protocol for cases involving a breach of the Town Council by-laws.

6 The pre-action protocols prescribe certain steps that a town council must take before it initiates prosecution under the relevant provisions of the TCA. Each protocol provides a framework for the town council to negotiate and engage with the resident, before initiating criminal proceedings as a last resort. For example, under the pre-prosecution protocol for cases involving the failure to pay S&CC, a town council is required to issue at least two notices to a defendant resident before issuing a statutory demand under section 39(6) of the TCA. The said notices will contain an invitation to the defendant to agree to an instalment plan for the payment of the S&CC arrears. The town council is required to serve the second notice on the defendant resident personally, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so. Similarly, under the pre-prosecution protocol for cases involving a breach of the town council by-laws, a town council is required to issue at least two notices to a defendant resident before initiating criminal prosecution. In this case, the notices will contain an invitation to the defendant to agree to an instalment plan for the payment of the composition amount offered.

7 It is anticipated that the pre-action protocols will benefit the town councils, residents and the Courts in the following ways:

a. The pre-action protocols will ensure that town councils have a consistent system of managing the non-payment of S&CC and breach of town council by-laws, before they initiate criminal proceedings.

b. The town councils will be able to identify residents who have genuine difficulties in paying the S&CC arrears or composition amounts (as the case may be). In those cases, the town councils can render the necessary assistance or adapt the penalty measures to the circumstances of such residents.

c. If a resident responds favourably to any step taken under the pre-action protocols, the town council would save substantial costs (in terms of filing fees and legal costs); much public resources would also be saved.

d. For residents who have genuine reasons for defaulting on their S&CC payments, the pre-action protocols give them the opportunity to focus on making payments under a viable instalment plan for the S&CC arrears without the imposition of higher financial burdens in the form of court fines.

e. Town councils can consider filing the bulk of their S&CC claims in the Small Claims Tribunals to recover outstanding payments. This is a viable alternative to criminal prosecution in achieving the ultimate purpose of debt recovery.

f. Criminal prosecution will be reserved as a measure of last resort for town councils to deal with recalcitrant offenders; court resources are consequently more efficiently deployed.

8 The pre-action protocols are targeted for implementation in April 2018. 

(ii) FRiends ENgaging and Supporting (“FRENS”) scheme

1 The Community Court adopts a problem-solving approach that combines criminal justice and community resources for a comprehensive response. In addition to the principles of deterrence and retribution, the Community Court is committed to the dual principles of rehabilitation and prevention. Since its inception in June 2006, it has rolled out initiatives with its stakeholders to help rehabilitate and restore offenders to society, and to break the cycle of their reoffending.

2 The Community Court has noted that some offenders have significant problems reforming because they lack family and/or community support. Such lack of support may stem from a number of overlapping factors, such as the offender’s continued unemployment, association with negative peers and/or estrangement from his family. Without any support, these offenders tend to fall back into the criminal justice system as repeat offenders, especially if their only “support” once they are released from prison is their negative peers, who may themselves be caught in a cycle of reoffending. In such circumstance, there would be little impetus for them to reform or address the underlying causes of their offending behaviour.

3 To help rehabilitate and restore offenders to society, and to break the cycle of their reoffending, a befriender programme would be a critical intervention to help them identify the root causes of their offending behaviour and form an alternative pro-social support network. This could help reduce the chances of them returning to the company of negative peers or give up on rehabilitation.

4 For offenders sentenced to fines or short imprisonment terms, the current in-care and aftercare befriender schemes are not accessible to them. The FRiends ENgaging and Supporting, or “FRENS”, scheme fills this gap by linking offenders sentenced to imprisonment terms of less than 12 months with volunteer befrienders who will accompany them in their rehabilitation journey after their release from prison or after they have been sentenced to a fine.

5 The befriender will, amongst other things,: 

a. provide the offender with emotional support, principally with a view to encouraging the offender to persevere in his rehabilitation journey, e.g. in attending any aftercare programmes prescribed by the Community Court Secretariat (CCS);

b. provide practical assistance such as linking the offender to agencies which may help him secure housing, employment or welfare assistance;

c. ease the offender’s re-entry into society by helping him build a pro-social network, so as to prevent the offender from turning to his negative peers;

d. work with the offender to identify the root cause(s) of his offending behaviour and refer him to the relevant agencies which can address the root cause(s), e.g. alcohol or drug addiction.

6 Offenders who meet the qualifying criteria will be identified by the Community Court at the stage of pre-trial conference or at the stage of sentencing. Once a case has been identified as being potentially suitable for the FRENS scheme, a Community Court Conference (CCC) will be convened for a court counsellor to ascertain if the case is suitable for the FRENS scheme and whether the offender is willing to participate in it.

7 If the case is deemed suitable for the FRENS scheme and the offender is willing to participate in it, the CCS will refer the offender to the Community Justice Centre (CJC) and recommend aftercare programmes to the offender. The CJC will then:

a. identify a suitable befriender from its pool of volunteers;

b. provide the details of the befriender to the Singapore Prisons Service and ascertain the offender’s date of release from prison (if the accused is sentenced to a short imprisonment term); and

c. link the offender and befriender with the relevant social agencies that could assist the offender.

8 Engagement between the befriender and offender will start the moment a befriender is assigned to the offender; this can be at the pre-sentence or post-sentence stage. The engagement will come to an end, at the earliest, six months after the offender’s release from prison or after he has been sentenced to a fine; the maximum period of engagement can be up to one year after the offender’s release from prison or after he has been sentenced to a fine.

9 At the end of the engagement, a survey will be conducted with the befriender and offender to keep track of the offender’s progress.

10 There is no sanction for non-compliance with the FRENS scheme. However, the compliance record may be brought to the attention of the Court in the event of a re-offence.

11 The FRENS scheme is expected to be implemented in the second quarter of 2018.

(iii) Consolidated management of volunteer mediators

1 The State Courts are assisted by about 160 dedicated volunteer mediators who help parties in civil cases, Magistrate’s Complaints and community disputes resolve their disputes without resorting to litigation. The volunteer mediators are currently managed separately by the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution (SCCDR) and Community Justice and Tribunals Division (CJTD), and are deployed to the SCCDR and CJTD according to the types of cases for which they conduct mediations. Volunteer mediators in the SCCDR mediate low-value civil disputes filed in the Magistrate’s Court, Magistrate’s Complaints and community disputes while those in CJTD are primarily involved in the mediation of small claim disputes.

2 With effect from 1 April 2018, the volunteer mediators will be centrally managed by the SCCDR, which will:

a. oversee the appointment and re-appointment of the volunteers;

b. map their progression pathways, including their training requirements; and

c. provide opportunities for volunteer engagement and recognition.

3 It is envisaged that this consolidated management of the volunteer mediators will enhance parity in terms of the volunteers’ contributions, fulfilment requirements, awards and recognition. The possibility of volunteers mediating in both the SCCDR and CJTD will also be explored, to diversify the experience of our volunteers. In addition, the volunteers will be re-designated as “Court Volunteer Mediators” from April 2018. This would distinguish them from private mediators and provide greater recognition for their contributions to the work of the State Courts.

(iv) Capacity-building for Judicial Officers and Court Administrators

1 Multi-disciplinary thinking is required in an increasingly complex legal world. Just as lawyers these days need to be multi-disciplinary, so too do State Courts’ Judges and court administrators. As part of their ongoing efforts to develop broad-based legal knowledge in their Judicial Officers (JOs), the State Courts are looking to introduce a structured framework to enable the JOs to perform judicial work outside their core division. The main objective of this framework is to enhance bench skills and to develop adaptiveness. This framework will formalise what is already in existence on an ad hoc basis.

2 The proposed framework envisages two schemes - one targeted at senior JOs which will see the senior JOs placed on a one-year attachment to another division; and another one for other JOs to apply to perform work at a secondary division over a six-month period. The proposed framework is targeted to be implemented by the fourth quarter of 2018.

3 Court Administrators form the backbone of the State Courts. It is thus vital to ensure that they are adaptable and well-trained to perform their roles competently, professionally and responsibly. The State Courts roll out an array of learning and development initiatives every year to inspire officers at all levels to constantly engage in learning and upgrade their skill sets. A Skillsfuture sponsorship was introduced in 2017 to provide financial support for staff to upgrade their skills.

(B) Refining court processes

(i) “Documents-only” civil trials and assessments of damages

1 In arbitration, the proceedings can be conducted and determined solely on the basis of evidence tendered by way of documents, witness statements and/or written submissions.

2 To provide an efficient, cost-effective and time-saving option for litigants, the State Courts are piloting similar “documents-only” dispute resolution proceedings as an option for parties who consent to its use for the adjudication of their cases. This pilot, which commenced in December 2017, will run for six months for suitable types of civil trials or assessment of damages (AD) hearings.

3 The types of cases that are designated for participation in the pilot are case where the:

a. issues in dispute centre on the interpretation of documents;

b. cross-examination of witnesses is not necessary either because there are no disputes of fact, and/or the parties agree to admit the Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief without the attendance of the witnesses;

c. Court may determine the dispute based on the existing contemporaneous documents without the testimony of witnesses;  

d. cross-examination of witnesses is not an option for the dispute in question (i.e. where the relevant witnesses are not willing and/or available to give evidence, e.g. where an ex-employee is no longer with the relevant company, a third party witness refuses to provide evidence or attend Court, or a witness can no longer be located or is ill or has died); and/or

e. issues between the parties can be determined entirely by legal submissions/arguments. 

4 In such “documents-only” hearings, the final determination of the cases will be conducted entirely on the basis of:

a. evidence tendered by way of Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief without the attendance of witnesses;

b. documents; and/or

c. written submissions. 

5 As in arbitration, parties can request to make oral submissions in support of their respective cases.

6 The benefits of “documents-only” trials or AD hearings are:

a. Parties, especially those involved in low-value disputes, save time and costs as witnesses do not need to attend hearings and give oral evidence, thereby leading to a shorter trial or AD hearing.

b. Cases can be resolved and their outcome determined within a shorter time frame since the schedules of witnesses and counsel need not be taken into consideration when setting trial dates.

c. The deployment of court resources can be optimised since more hearings can be scheduled as a result of shorter trials and AD hearings.

7 The State Courts will evaluate if this mode of proceedings should be formally implemented or if the pilot should be extended when it ends in June 2018. 

(ii) Pre-action protocol for defamation actions

1 The effect of the prevalent use of social media and instant messaging platforms in Singapore is not lost on the State Courts. These platforms, which provide an easy and unrestrained forum for views to be expressed on a vast array of issues and facilitate repeated publication, are likely contributing factors to defamation-related writs filed in the State Courts.

2 Defamation actions are, by nature, personal. They are accompanied by heightened emotions and a need for vindication. The desired remedy is often non-monetary. Defamation law is, however, technical, and poorly-drafted pleadings are not uncommon in the State Courts. In the lead up to trial, increased interlocutories are also often seen. The trial itself is frequently protracted by factual disputes. Defamation proceedings can therefore be time-consuming and costly for the parties and the Court.

3 To better manage defamation actions, the State Courts will be introducing a pre-action protocol which seeks to:

a. guide parties on the technicalities in defamation actions from the outset;

b. improve the quality of pleadings;

c. facilitate the early exchange of information;

d. encourage constructive negotiations towards consensual outcomes and settlement; and

e. narrow issues for trial. 

4 Under this Protocol, parties are required to:

a. use standard forms for claims and responses that will guide them to address key issues such as the elements of defamation, defences, and remedies; and

b. exchange documents and offers to settle, as well as to explore alternative dispute resolution options, before filing a writ. This will assist the parties to better appreciate the relative strengths and weaknesses of their cases, and focus on achieving an amicable resolution.

5 This Protocol benefits parties and the Court in the following ways: 

a. Parties can arrive at consensual resolutions to their disputes.

b. The interlocutory proceedings will be shortened and parties save time and costs as the trials would focus on narrowed issues.

c. The Court will be able to channel its resources to other cases.

6 The Protocol is targeted to be implemented by end 2018.

(iii) Practitioner’s Guide to Assessment of Damages in Defamation Actions

1 Defamation proceedings tend to be time-consuming and costly given the fact-intensive nature of the dispute. After liability has been established, the damages awarded for injury to the claimant’s reputation are based largely on precedents. The awards are often disproportionate to the time and costs that had been spent on the matter.

2 To enable a potential litigant to conduct a cost-benefit analysis at an early stage to ascertain if he should pursue his case in Court, the State Courts will be developing a publication that tracks all the defamation awards made in the Supreme Court and State Courts from 2006. The publication Practitioner’s Guide to Assessment of Damages in Defamation Actions will cover the following:

a. A brief outline of the general legal principles on the tort of defamation in Singapore;

b. Past awards made by the Singapore Courts in all reported defamation cases (i.e. in the Singapore Law Reports) and all unreported defamation cases which have concluded since 2006.

3 The Practitioner’s Guide to Assessment of Damages in Defamation Actions will be the first local publication that collates the Singapore Courts’ decisions on damages awarded in defamation cases. It will, amongst others,:

a. allow potential litigants to have realistic and measured expectations of the likely awards of damages should they succeed in their defamation suits;

b. enable lawyers to help their clients estimate the quantum of damages that they could seek;

c. serve as a reference for Judges to arrive at awards of damages, so as to ensure a level of consistency across similar cases;

d. serve as a primer on the law of defamation to anyone who needs to be concerned with this area of the law.

4 The publication is expected to be available in June 2019.

(iv) Additional dispute resolution tool – Conciliation

1 The State Courts have been actively encouraging and promoting the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) so that litigants can resolve their disputes without resorting to trial. Currently, two main modes of dispute resolution – mediation and neutral evaluation – are offered in the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution (SCCDR) for civil claims, Magistrate’s Complaints and community disputes that have been filed in the State Courts.

2 During mediation, the mediator, as a neutral party, facilitates negotiations between the parties with a view towards achieving a mutually acceptable resolution of their dispute. The mediator does not determine who is at fault in the dispute. Instead, he helps the parties identify their underlying interests and focus on finding solutions that address their competing and common interests, without offering opinions or suggestions for the resolution of the dispute. The parties must find their own optimal solution.

3 In neutral evaluation, a Judge-evaluator will evaluate the merits of the case and provide the parties with an indication of the likely outcome based on the available evidence and the law, should the case proceed to trial. The parties would thereafter conduct direct negotiations on the basis of the evaluation. Unless the parties agree to be bound by the evaluation, the Judge’s indications are ordinarily not binding.

4 In 2018, the SCCDR will add conciliation to its repertoire of ADR tools. The conciliator, who is a Judge, will, as a neutral party, guide, assist and encourage the parties to reach an optimal solution by actively suggesting, for the parties’ consideration, measures or proposals that may resolve the issues in dispute. Ultimately, the decision on whether to agree to a settlement of the dispute rests with the parties.

5 Conciliation is commonly practised in some civil law countries such as Italy. It is also offered in Australia which is a common law jurisdiction.

6 Conciliation can be useful in cases where:

a. one or more of the parties is a litigant-in-person;

b. there is no desire to mediate and/or no genuine offers have been exchanged at the outset;

c. the parties need help to reach an agreement on technical or legal issues; or

d. the parties have attempted mediation but have come to an impasse in negotiating a settlement.

7 In the pilot phase, which will be rolled out by the fourth quarter of 2018, the SCCDR will identify cases which are suitable for conciliation. It will consider the use of conciliation more widely after reviewing the results of the pilot.

(v) Facilitating early resolution of criminal cases through Alternative Dispute Resolution

1 Currently, most minor regulatory offences do not fall within the ambit of existing State Courts’ schemes¹ which are intended to facilitate the effective and efficient resolution of criminal cases.

2 To optimise the use of judicial resources, the State Courts will be exploring the possibility of extending judge-led mediation and neutral evaluation to minor regulatory offences that involve straightforward and less complex issues of law.

¹These refer to the Criminal Case Disclosure process which is prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Case Resolution Scheme, and the Criminal Case Management Scheme.

3 It is envisaged that this initiative will bring about an early resolution of such cases, thereby saving the parties’ time and lowering legal costs. By reducing the incidence of “cracked” trials, prosecutorial and court resources can be more optimally allocated.

4 Even if these ADR processes do not result in an early resolution, they can help to narrow the issues for trial to cut down on the hearing time required. The ADR sessions can also be a means for parties to exchange documents and other relevant information. In order to maintain neutrality and impartiality, the judge-mediator, who plays a largely facilitative role, will not assume the role of trial judge if the case proceeds to trial. The State Courts are currently exploring this initiative with other criminal justice stakeholders. 

(vi) Streamlining Magistrate’s Complaint process

1. The Employment Claims Tribunals, Small Claims Tribunals and Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, together with the registry for Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) matters, are located on level one of the State Courts Building, under the purview of the Community Justice and Tribunals Division (CJTD). This co-location of the tribunals and POHA registry allows parties with matters in the tribunals and/or POHA registry to use the CJTD’s services without having to shuttle between places. In turn, the CJTD is able to manage the cases effectively and expediently as Judges and staff with expertise and experience in dealing with such matters are pooled together.

2. One-stop centre for Magistrate’s Complaints

2.1. Magistrate’s Complaints filed by members of the public often involve allegations of harassment and/or disputes between neighbours. Remedies for such matters are also available under the POHA and Community Disputes Resolution Act (CDRA). In order to better assist complainants of such matters, a one-stop centre for Magistrate’s Complaints was set up in the CJTD’s premises in January 2018. This benefits complainants as they:

a. only need to go to one location, i.e. the CJTD premises, to understand and access all the avenues available for resolving their issues in a holistic manner; 

b. will be able to evaluate the full range of available civil remedies under the CDRA and POHA and potential criminal sanctions for POHA matters and neighbour disputes, and determine the most suitable course to take for dealing with their issues; and

c. will have access to the expertise and resources of the CJTD in pre-filing assessments, conciliatory dispute management, on-site psychological services, counselling and mediation.

3. Interactive Online Self-assessment Tool for Magistrate’s Complaints

3.1. The State Courts are developing an interactive online self-assessment tool to guide potential complainants in assessing if:

a. their intended case meets the requirements for a Magistrate’s Complaint to be filed; and

b. the Magistrate’s Complaint process is the appropriate forum to address their grievances.

3.2. Besides information about the Magistrate’s Complaint process, the pre-filing self-assessment tool will have information relating to alternatives to filing a Magistrate’s Complaint for the user to consider.

3.3. The pre-filing self-assessment tool is expected to be piloted in the second half of 2018

(C) Enhancing user experience

i) i-connect @ State Courts



1 To prepare for their transition to operating from the new State Courts Towers, the State Courts have been exploring operational modalities that they could adopt in their new premises to better serve their court users and enhance users’ experience when they come into contact with the State Courts.

2 The newly set up i-connect @ State Courts on level one of the State Courts Building is a business centre with:

a. meeting pods for court users to conduct discussions with court volunteers;

b. Internet kiosks for users to access the State Courts’ online services that allow them to submit their claims or retrieve their case information from the various State Courts online case management and filing systems, and download information;

c. self-service printing, scanning and photocopying facilities; and  

d. food and drinks vending machines.

3 Also housed at the i-connect @ State Courts is the family-connect @ State Courts, a collaboration between the State Courts and Singapore After-Care Association (SACA). The objective of the family-connect @ State Courts is to assist families of offenders facing imprisonment terms, since many of them would face anxiety and stress when their loved ones are sent to prison. The family-connect @ State Courts officially started its operations on 29 January 2018. Volunteers from SACA are stationed at the i-connect @ State Courts every Monday and Wednesday, from 10.00am to 2.00pm, to provide counselling and emotional support to family members of offenders sent to prison. They will also provide the family members with basic information on prison procedures and other matters related to prison life and processes, and referrals to the relevant assistance schemes and social agencies for those who need financial assistance or support for young children and elderly dependents.

4 Besides serving court users, the i-connect @ State Courts allows the State Courts to test concepts that may be introduced in the new State Courts Towers to enhance court users’ experience. Therefore, the State Courts will be studying the i-connect @ State Courts users’ experience and usage, and draw learning points from it for a similar set-up in the new State Courts Towers.

(ii) Speech Transcription System

1 The State Courts are collaborating with A*STAR’s Institute for Infocomm Research to develop a Speech Transcription System (STS) for use in the Courts, so that oral evidence and delivery presented in court proceedings can be instantly transcribed in real time. The use of this technology will redefine the recording of evidence in the State Courts.

2 The STS recognises human voice and transcribes the speech into text in real time. Real-time transcription service will be available for the parties involved in court proceedings without the use of court reporters or transcribers. The STS will also provide instant access to the recorded evidence to all participants as the transcripts produced can be displayed on individual computer monitors in the courtrooms simultaneously. With this, the Judge and parties to the case would be able to review the oral testimonies and evidence presented in Court immediately

3 The State Courts handle about 99 per cent of the criminal cases in Singapore. Currently, all criminal court proceedings, except mention cases, are digitally recorded. Transcription, by an external service provider, takes about seven days. To have immediate access to transcripts, parties have to engage private vendors. With the introduction of the STS, the State Courts’ court reporting services will include real-time transcription.

4 There are many benefits of real-time transcription:

a. Judges, prosecutors and defence counsel in criminal hearings can access the recorded evidence immediately, allowing more effective participation by the parties, especially the party that is questioning the witness on the stand.

b. When the STS detects that a speaker cannot be heard clearly, it can prompt the speaker to speak more clearly.

c. The STS has a search function to locate specific parts of the evidence. This allows parties and the Judge to seek immediate clarification during the proceedings.

2 The STS is targeted for implementation in all the courtrooms in the new State Courts Towers in 2020, if the Proof-of-Concept (expected to be completed by early 2019) is successful