HAN LI YING, KIRSTEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kwek Mean Luck |
| Charges / claim | Contempt of Court, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, BMS Law LLC, Dan Pan Xue Wen, Sivakumar s/o Ramasamy, Too Xing Ji |
Source: [2023] SGHC 137, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Han Li Ying Kirsten v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 137 is a reserved judgment of Kwek Mean Luck J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 12 May 2023 in Originating Application No 72 of 2023. The applicant, Ms Han Li Ying, Kirsten, sought permission under O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2021 to apply for a quashing order against a conditional warning administered by DSP Seet Hui Li on 21 October 2022, a declaration that the Singapore Police Force had no power to compel her physical attendance to issue the warning, and a mandatory order for the First Information Report to be furnished to her.
[2023] SGHC 137 explained
HAN LI YING, KIRSTEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2023] SGHC 137) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 12 May 2023. It is categorised under Contempt of Court, Administrative Law, and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHC 137 about?
HAN LI YING, KIRSTEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2023] SGHC 137) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Contempt of Court — Criminal contempt”, “Administrative Law — Remedies — Quashing order”, “Administrative Law — Remedies — Mandatory order”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — First information report”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 137 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC 137 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 90. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
Han Li Ying Kirsten sought permission to bring judicial review of a conditional police warning, applying for a quashing order, a declaration that the police had no power to compel her attendance, and a mandatory order to be furnished with the First Information Report. The central issue was whether the warning had legal effect and was susceptible to judicial review. Finding it had no legal effect and that Ms Han lacked locus standi on the ancillary prayer, the court dismissed the application.
What did Han Li Ying Kirsten v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 137 concern?
Kwek Mean Luck J heard Ms Han Li Ying, Kirsten's application under O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2021 for permission to seek judicial review of a conditional police warning issued on 21 October 2022. Delivered 12 May 2023.
What orders did the applicant seek in [2023] SGHC 137?
Ms Han sought a quashing order against the conditional warning administered by DSP Seet Hui Li, a declaration that the Singapore Police Force had no power to compel her physical attendance to issue it, and a mandatory order to furnish her First Information Report.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (15)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 137)