Statute Details
- Title: List of Touts
- Act Code: SCJA1969-N3
- Type: Singapore legislation (SL)
- Current status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Authorising Act: Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322), section 73
- Commencement: [20th March 1970] (as indicated in the extract)
- Key operative rule (from the extract): Exclusion from the Supreme Court precincts for persons named in the “list of touts”
- Legislative history (as shown): 1990 RevEd; 1997 RevEd (Revised Edition 1997 dated 26 Sep 1997)
- Regulatory instrument reference: G.N. No. 920/1970
What Is This Legislation About?
The “List of Touts” is not a standalone regulatory code in the way a typical Act or subsidiary legislation might be. Instead, it is a published list that is authorised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322) and tied to a specific statutory power: the publication of a list of persons regarded as “touts” for the purposes of controlling access to the Supreme Court precincts.
In plain language, the legal effect of this instrument is straightforward: if a person’s name appears in the official list of touts, that person is barred from entering or being present in the precincts of the Supreme Court, subject to a limited exception. The exception applies where the person is a party to, or a witness in, proceedings in the Supreme Court.
Practically, the instrument is aimed at protecting the integrity of court processes. “Touting” in this context is commonly associated with improper solicitation or interference with legal proceedings—conduct that can undermine fairness, create conflicts, and erode public confidence. By restricting access to the Supreme Court precincts, the law seeks to reduce opportunities for such conduct and to maintain order around the court.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Exclusion from the Supreme Court precincts
The core provision in the extract states: “Any person whose name appears in the list of touts published pursuant to section 73 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act is excluded from the precincts of the Supreme Court”. This is an automatic consequence of being listed. There is no requirement in the extract for a separate order against the individual; the listing itself triggers the exclusion.
For practitioners, this means that the legal status of the person is determined by the official publication. If you are advising a client (or assessing risk for an organisation or individual), the key factual question is whether the person’s name appears on the current version of the list.
2. Scope of the exclusion: “precincts of the Supreme Court”
The instrument uses the phrase “precincts of the Supreme Court”. While the extract does not define the term, the practical implication is that the restriction is not limited to the courtroom itself. “Precincts” typically covers the areas associated with the Supreme Court complex—spaces where court users, lawyers, and the public may congregate.
Accordingly, compliance advice should be conservative: if a person is listed, they should avoid entering any area that could reasonably be considered part of the Supreme Court precincts, unless they qualify for the exception described below.
3. Exception for parties and witnesses
The instrument provides a narrow carve-out: the exclusion does not apply “except when that person is a party to or a witness in any proceedings in the Supreme Court.”
This exception is important because it preserves the fundamental right of access to justice. A person who is listed as a tout is not automatically prevented from participating in court proceedings where their involvement is legally required or directly relevant. The exception is tied to the person’s role in specific proceedings in the Supreme Court.
4. Evidential and practical considerations for the exception
Although the extract does not specify documentation requirements, in practice a listed person who needs to attend court as a party or witness should be prepared to demonstrate their status. For example, they may need to show court documents, witness summonses, affidavits, or other materials indicating their role.
From a legal risk perspective, counsel should also consider timing and scope. The exception is connected to “any proceedings in the Supreme Court.” It would be prudent to limit presence in the precincts to the period necessary for the relevant proceedings and to ensure that attendance is consistent with court directions and security arrangements.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The “List of Touts” is structured as a published legal instrument with a status/version framework. The extract shows that the document is maintained in a “current version” format and includes a timeline and versions (including revised editions).
Unlike a typical Act with multiple sections and subsections, the extract indicates a single operative rule governing the legal consequence of being named in the list. The instrument is anchored to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act via section 73, which is the authorising provision.
For practitioners, the key structural feature is therefore not internal segmentation, but rather the linkage to the authorising Act and the version control mechanism. The legal effect depends on the “current version as at” the relevant date, and the timeline indicates that the list has been carried forward through revised editions.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
This instrument applies to individuals whose names appear in the official “list of touts” published pursuant to section 73 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The restriction is personal and status-based: it attaches to the person listed.
It does not, on the face of the extract, impose a direct restriction on lawyers, litigants generally, or members of the public who are not listed. However, it may indirectly affect court users and counsel by shaping who can lawfully be present in the Supreme Court precincts.
As noted, the instrument also applies with an exception: a listed person may enter the precincts when they are a party to or a witness in proceedings in the Supreme Court. This exception is role- and proceeding-specific, meaning that the same person may be excluded in general but permitted for the duration and purpose of their participation in relevant proceedings.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
The “List of Touts” is important because it operationalises a policy of protecting court processes from improper influence. The Supreme Court is a forum of high public trust. Allowing touting or solicitation around court premises can create risks of unfairness, harassment, and manipulation of legal representation. By excluding listed touts from the precincts, the law reduces opportunities for such conduct.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the instrument provides a clear and administrable rule: being listed triggers exclusion. This clarity supports consistent security and access control measures at the Supreme Court. It also gives counsel and court staff a practical basis for determining whether a person should be admitted to the precincts.
For legal practitioners, the instrument has immediate day-to-day relevance. It may arise in scenarios such as: (i) a client or witness who is concerned about attending court; (ii) security screening at the Supreme Court; (iii) disputes about whether a person’s presence is lawful; or (iv) internal risk assessments when dealing with third parties who may approach litigants or witnesses.
Importantly, the exception for parties and witnesses reflects a balance between court integrity and access to justice. The law does not treat listed persons as categorically barred from court participation; instead, it permits attendance when their involvement is anchored in the judicial process.
Related Legislation
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322), section 73 (authorising provision for the publication of the list of touts)
- Judicature Act (as referenced in the metadata)
- Timeline (legislation timeline reference used to confirm the correct version)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the List of Touts for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.