HAN LI YING, KIRSTEN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL

[2023] SGHC 137 High Court (General Division) 12 May 2023 HC/OA 72/2023

15 cases cited (11 SG, 4 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	12 May 2023
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 12 May 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contempt of Court — Criminal contempt Administrative Law — Remedies — Quashing order Administrative Law — Remedies — Mandatory order Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — First information report Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Public Prosecutor — Powers Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Offences affecting administration of justice

Practice Areas

Contempt of Court Administrative Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm

BMS Law LLC Firm

Dan Pan Xue Wen Counsel for the respondent

Sivakumar s/o Ramasamy Counsel for the respondent

Too Xing Ji Counsel for the applicant

Parties (2)

Attorney-General Respondent Han Li Ying, Kirsten Applicant

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.

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) Cases on this Act →

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (15)

SG (1)

[2023] SGHC 90

SLR (10)

[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 [2010] 2 SLR 1189 [2010] 2 SLR 374 [2012] 4 SLR 231 [2012] 4 SLR 476 [2015] 5 SLR 1422 [2016] 1 SLR 1370 [2019] 3 SLR 1402 [2020] 2 SLR 883 [2021] 2 SLR 642

UK (2)

[1993] QB 769 [2007] 2 WLR 226

MY (2)

[1979] 2 MLJ 304 [2009] 3 MLJ 337