S Iswaran v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2024] SGCA 35 Court of Appeal 13 September 2024 • CA/CM 32/2024 • 14 min read

6 cases cited (5 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Disclosure Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal references

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (3)

Steven Chong Coram Sundaresh Menon Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (11)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Firm Christopher Ong Counsel Respondent Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh Counsel Applicant Harriz Bin Jaya Ansor Counsel Applicant Kelvin Chong Yue Hua Counsel Respondent Navin Shanmugaraj Thevar Counsel Applicant Sarah Siaw Counsel Respondent Sheiffa Safi Shirbeeni Counsel Applicant Sumedha Madhusudhanan Counsel Applicant Tai Wei Shyong Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent S Iswaran Applicant

Case Significance

S Iswaran v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 35 was decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 13 September 2024, following a hearing on 3 September 2024. The matter was Criminal Motion No 32 of 2024 (CM 32), heard by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Woo Bih Li JAD, with the grounds of decision delivered by Sundaresh Menon CJ. The applicant S Iswaran applied, under s 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed), for permission to refer two questions of law to the Court of Appeal.

The catchwords identify the case as concerning criminal references and disclosure. The two questions concerned whether, in General Division of the High Court cases to which the criminal case disclosure procedures in Part 10, Division 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code apply, the Prosecution must include in the Case for the Prosecution the facts and evidence supporting the charges by way of witness statements or in any other form (Question 1), and whether the court could and ought to invoke its inherent powers, case management powers or s 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code to order the Prosecution to do so (Question 2). The applicant stood accused in a criminal case to be tried in the General Division of the High Court (HC/HC 900019/2024). After hearing oral arguments, the court dismissed CM 32. The applicant was represented by Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, including Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh, while the Public Prosecutor was represented by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Summary

In this criminal motion, the applicant sought permission to refer two questions of law to the Court of Appeal concerning whether the Prosecution must include witness statements or other evidence supporting the charges in the Case for the Prosecution, and whether the court could order the Prosecution to do so under its inherent or case management powers or section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court considered that granting the relief sought would in effect require it to craft a disclosure scheme not provided for in the statute and to undo a repeal effected by Parliament, which was not within its powers. The court dismissed the application (CM 32).

What did the Court of Appeal decide in S Iswaran v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 35?

The Court of Appeal dismissed Criminal Motion No 32 of 2024, in which S Iswaran sought permission under s 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to refer two questions of law concerning the Prosecution's disclosure obligations in the Case for the Prosecution.

What questions of law did S Iswaran seek to refer in [2024] SGCA 35?

The two questions concerned whether the Prosecution must include in the Case for the Prosecution the facts and evidence supporting the charges by witness statements or otherwise, and whether the court could invoke its inherent or case management powers, or s 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to order this.