IRIS KOH SHU CII v The Attorney-General/Public Prosecutor
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | See Kee Oon |
| Charges / claim | Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Fernandez LLC, Jiang Ke-Yue, Lim Tze Etsuko, Mohamed Arshad bin Mohamed, Patrick Fernandez |
Source: [2023] SGHC 229, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Koh Shu Cii Iris v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 229 is a grounds of decision of See Kee Oon J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 17 August 2023 in Originating Application No 387 of 2023. The applicant, Koh Shu Cii Iris, sought permission to proceed with judicial review for a quashing order in relation to the Attorney-General's decision, acting as Public Prosecutor, to intervene in and discontinue HC/MA 1/2022/01, together with declaratory relief. The application arose after the police seized the applicant's electronic devices and a legal professional privilege review was conducted. See Kee Oon J dismissed the application.
[2023] SGHC 229 explained
IRIS KOH SHU CII v The Attorney-General/Public Prosecutor ([2023] SGHC 229) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 17 August 2023. It is categorised under 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 229 about?
IRIS KOH SHU CII v The Attorney-General/Public Prosecutor ([2023] SGHC 229) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Administrative Law — Remedies — Declaration”, “Administrative Law — Remedies — Quashing order”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Complaints to Magistrates”, 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 229 consider?
The judgment refers to Community Mediation Centres Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Penal Code (Cap 224), and State Courts Act (Cap 321), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Iris Koh Shu Cii applied for permission to proceed with judicial review, seeking a quashing order against the Attorney-General's decision to intervene in and discontinue a Magistrate's Appeal, together with declaratory relief, following the dismissal of her Magistrate's Complaint alleging police breaches of a legal professional privilege review protocol. See Kee Oon J held that the Respondent was justified in its position that the relevant Criminal Procedure Code requirements were not mandatory and afforded no right of appeal. The application and the contingent declaratory relief were dismissed, with costs of $5,000 ordered against the applicant.
What was Koh Shu Cii Iris v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 229 about?
It was an application by Koh Shu Cii Iris before See Kee Oon J for permission to seek judicial review and a quashing order over the Attorney-General's decision to discontinue HC/MA 1/2022/01, plus declaratory relief. The court dismissed the application on 17 August 2023.
What did the court decide in [2023] SGHC 229?
See Kee Oon J dismissed Koh Shu Cii Iris's application for permission to proceed with judicial review and declaratory relief, which challenged the Attorney-General's decision, acting as Public Prosecutor, to intervene in and discontinue a magistrate's complaint matter.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (4)
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 229)