Court rejects Ngerng’s bid for Queen’s Counsel
Roy Ngerng. TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — The High Court has dismissed blogger Roy Ngerng’s bid for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
High Court judge Steven Chong also ordered Ngerng to pay S$6,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements, for his failed bid to hire a QC — elite British lawyers who are equivalent to top-tier Singapore lawyers known as Senior Counsels (SCs).
Under the Legal Profession Act, a QC can only be admitted to argue cases in local courts if they have special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case.
The courts will also look into factors such as whether SCs are available for the case.
Ngerng, 33, filed an application on May 28 to admit Ms Heather Rogers, QC, on an “ad hoc basis” for his hearing on the damages he is liable for, after a High Court ruled in November last year that he had defamed Prime Minister Lee in a blog post in which he suggested that Central Provident Fund savings had been
misappropriated.
In dismissing the application today (June 11), Justice Chong ruled that although Ms Rogers is a well-respected lawyer in the field of defamation in the United Kingdom, “general subject-matter expertise” is not enough to sway a court to admit a QC for a case.
Ngerng’s case is also “plainly local-centric”, the judge said, and the courts have given “particular protection”
to the reputation of local political figures here.
“There is no material before me to suggest that Ms Rogers is particularly conversant with the delicate matrix of factors which informs the award of damages for libel against public figures in Singapore,” he said, adding that Ms Rogers’ extensive experience in UK defamation cases will thus be “of limited utility”.
Justice Chong noted that Singapore’s courts have long ceased to rely on precedents set by the English courts. Recent reforms of English defamation laws, such as the Defamation Act 2013, have “taken the position in the UK even further away from that in Singapore”, he said.
In concluding that it is unnecessary to admit Ms Rogers to represent Ngerng, Justice Chong added that the issue at hand was “not particularly complex”.
On the argument of Ngerng’s lawyer George Hwang that this was the first time a blogger is being sued by the Prime Minister, Justice Chong stressed that “novelty is not to be confused with complexity”.
The judge added that it was “disappointing” that Ngerng made no attempt to get members of the local bar who are not SCs to argue his case.
“If Mr Ravi was suitable (to argue) at the more complex stage, I fail to see why local non-SCs would not be suitable at this less complex stage,” said Justice Chong.
He was referring to lawyer M Ravi, who represented Ngerng until he was suspended from practising law in February following concerns about his mental health.
When asked if he would continue to represent Ngerng, Mr Hwang said: “I should think so, unless he doesn’t want me to. I will have to seek further instructions from my client.”
The hearing to assess the amount of damages Ngerng has to pay Prime Minister Lee will be held before the High Court in July.
