Explainer: The default legal procedures for SDP’s Pofma court appeal and whether it will get a public hearing
The Supreme Court said that the appeal related to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act was arranged to be heard in chambers instead of an open court because it was filed by way of an originating summons and is in line with court rules.
SINGAPORE — The first hearing for a High Court appeal by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) to challenge Manpower Minister Josephine Teo's correction direction issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) will take place in private on Thursday (Jan 16).
SDP’s challenge comes after Mrs Teo rejected the opposition party’s application to cancel three correction directions she issued — over a published article and two Facebook posts that the Government said contained falsehoods and a misleading graphic.
Under the law to tackle fake news, which came into effect last October, a correction direction is issued to a person who has communicated a falsehood that affects the public interest.
In a media statement on Monday, SDP called the upcoming closed-door hearing "unfortunate" because members of the public and the media will not be able to attend.
In response to queries from TODAY, the Supreme Court said that the appeal was arranged to be heard in chambers instead of an open court because the Pofma appeal was filed by way of an originating summons.
This is in line with Pofma rules and also part of court rules.
TODAY takes you through the legal procedures involved after such a summons has been filed.
WHAT IS AN ORIGINATING SUMMONS?
An originating summons is one of the ways by which a person or an entity can take legal action against another party.
The other method is to issue a writ of summons, but an originating summons is typically the option when the case is unlikely to contain any substantial dispute of facts.
The Supreme Court’s website states: "Compared to a writ of summons, the originating summons is a simpler and swifter procedure for the resolution of disputes, as it is determined generally on affidavits filed and does not involve pleadings or many interlocutory proceedings."
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER SUMMONS IS FILED
For parties wanting to appeal a minister's correction direction, they have to file an originating summons and a supporting affidavit containing evidence to support their appeal.
The first hearing date scheduled is usually held in chambers based on established procedures.
For example, a wife who wants to obtain a restraining order on her husband will have the first hearing with her husband in chambers after filing an originating summons.
Ms Qua Biqi, lawyer at Solitaire law firm, said that it need not necessarily be heard before a High Court judge, unless the case is something of value.
However, all Pofma appeals will be presided before a High Court judge.
The first hearing in chambers could be very administrative, Ms Qua added.
"Both parties tell the court what the case is about, what they intend to do, whether they want to file an affidavit, and so on."
WILL THE CASE BE HEARD IN AN OPEN COURT AT ALL?
The judge presiding over the first hearing can make a judgement purely based on the affidavits, lawyers said.
If that were to be the case on Thursday, it means that the SDP's appeal against Mrs Teo will not be heard in the open court.
If the judge decides to reserve judgement, a date for the next hearing will be fixed, and it will usually also be held behind closed doors, Ms Qua said.
Either parties can apply for the case to be heard in open court, which is what SDP said it will do on Thursday during the hearing.
The party said in its statement: "Given that the matter has drawn widespread and intense public interest, the SDP is of the view that the case be open to the public."
However, not all originating summonses can be converted to be heard in the open court, lawyers said, and the judge can reject SDP's application.
Under the processes of the Supreme Court, only certain originating summonses can be heard in an open court, such as those involving the closure of a company, Ms Qua said.
Mr Amolat Singh of Amolat and Partners said that an originating summons can be heard in the open court — where both parties will be cross-examined — when there are factual issues that are being disputed and the judge needs to hear witnesses and assess credibility.
These processes, which involve the sorting out of affidavits, assessing them and scheduling another hearing, can take months.
Since this is the first appeal against an action taken under Pofma, lawyers approached by TODAY admitted that they are not sure exactly how it will pan out.
Ms Qua said that it is not clear yet whether Pofma appeals are under the list of originating summonses that can be heard in an open court.
Acknowledging that he is commenting based on what has been mentioned in Parliament, Mr Singh said: "My take is that it will not go to an open court, (because that will be) a long-drawn process".
This would defeat the purpose of Pofma, which is to correct falsehoods as quickly as possible.
"If it goes to open court, the media will report and everything is ventilated. It defeats the whole purpose of Pofma," Mr Singh added.
