SYED SUHAIL BIN SYED ZIN & 12 Ors v ATTORNEY GENERAL
41 cases cited
(37 SG, 4 foreign)
Cited by 2 cases
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (9)
Parties (14)
Attorney-General Respondent Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah Appellant Gobi a/l Avedian Appellant Hamzah bin Ibrahim Appellant Iskandar bin Rahmat Appellant Masoud Rahimi bin Merzad Appellant Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman Appellant Ramdhan bin Lajis Appellant Roslan bin Bakar Appellant Rosman bin Abdullah Appellant Saminathan Selvaraju Appellant Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin Appellant Tan Kay Yong Appellant Zamri bin Mohd Tahir Appellant
Case Significance
In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 39, the Court of Appeal heard Civil Appeal No 30 of 2022 brought by thirteen appellants who had at all material times been prisoners in Changi Prison after being convicted on various charges. The basic complaint was that Singapore Prison Services ("SPS") and the Attorney-General's Chambers ("AGC") had breached the appellants' right to confidentiality under civil law, and that the appellants were entitled to various remedies. In the court below, the appellants had been partially successful but appealed because they considered the relief insufficient.
The appeal was decided by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Judith Prakash SJ, with Judith Prakash SJ delivering the judgment of the court. It was heard across 20 January, 3 May and 2 August 2023 and 10 May 2024, with judgment reserved and delivered on 11 October 2024. Ong Ying Ping of Ong Ying Ping Esq, with Lee Ming Le, acted for the appellants, while WongPartnership LLP, including Tan Chee Meng and Leo Zhen Wei Lionel, acted for the respondent, the Attorney-General. The catchwords addressed breach of confidence, remedies in damages for breach of confidence, and copyright under the Copyright Act, alongside administrative law issues concerning prisons.
[2024] SGCA 39 explained
SYED SUHAIL BIN SYED ZIN & 12 Ors v ATTORNEY GENERAL ([2024] SGCA 39) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 11 October 2024. It is categorised under Confidence and Intellectual Property. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 [2024] SGCA 39 about?
SYED SUHAIL BIN SYED ZIN & 12 Ors v ATTORNEY GENERAL ([2024] SGCA 39) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Confidence — Remedies — Damages”, “Confidence — Breach of confidence”, “Intellectual Property — Copyright”, and “Intellectual Property — Copyright — Remedies — Damages”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGCA 39 consider?
The judgment refers to Copyright Act (Cap 63), Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Gobi that under the prevailing Prisons Act (Cap 247), and Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGCA 39 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGCA 37. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2024] SGCA 39?
Within this corpus, [2024] SGCA 39 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
11 October 2024
Case summary
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 39
CA/CA 30/2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Senior Judge Judith Prakash):
Outcome: The Court of Appeal granted declarations that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (“AGC”) and the Singapore Prison Services (“SPS”) had acted unlawfully by, respectively, requesting and disclosing the Appellants’ correspondence pursuant to a practice where SPS regularly shared documents with the AGC, seeking advice on any legal matters that might affect the execution timeline for Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment without taking steps to safeguard the Prisoners’ interest in confidentiality or privilege, and without ensuring that any such disclosure was limited to what was essential for the purposes of obtaining advice. The court also found that the SPS and the AGC acted in breach of confidence by, respectively, the disclosure and retention of the Appellants’ correspondence pursuant to the Practice.
The court declined to grant an order for damages and/or equitable relief for breach of confidence, to declare that the AG had infringed the Third, Fifth and Seventh Appellants’ copyright in their personal correspondence by the reproduction and retention of that correspondence, or to vary the decision of the judge in the General Division of the High Court (“the Judge”) that nominal damages of $10 for breach of copyright are payable to each of the First, Fifth and Seventh Appellants. The court made no order as to costs.
Background
1 CA/CA 30/2022 (“CA 30”) involves thirteen Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the “First” through “Thirteenth Appellants”, respectively) who have at all material times been prisoners in Changi Prison after having been convicted on various charges brought against them by the Public Prosecutor. The basic complaint underlying the proceedings is that the SPS and the AGC have breached the Appellants’ right to confidentiality under civil law and that the Appellants are entitled to various remedies for the same. In the court below, the Appellants were partially successful but appealed because they consider that they are entitled to much more in the way of private law remedies.
2 Complaints about the way in which the prison authorities handled correspondence were first made by one Mr Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah (“Mr Datchinamurthy”), when he was one of the appellants in CA/CA 23/2020 (“CA 23”). He alleged in those proceedings that, on 21 April 2020, the SPS had forwarded copies of documents which his family had passed to him in prison to the AGC. The SPS did not dispute these allegations. Thereafter, it was learnt that the AGC had requested information from the SPS on a different occasion, sometime after 2 April 2020, concerning whether Mr Gobi a/l Avedian (“Mr Gobi”), the other appellant in CA 23, and Mr Datchinamurthy had forwarded a minute sheet to their families. In response, and without a specific request from the AGC for these documents, the SPS forwarded copies of the two prisoners’ letters to their families to the AGC. The issue of the disclosure of prisoners’ documents was dealt with in the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in CA 23 (viz, Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal [2020] 2 SLR 883 (“Gobi”). The court earlier noted in Gobi at [88] that although the SPS was authorised to make copies of Mr Gobi’s and Mr Datchinamurthy’s correspondence vide reg 127A(2) of the Prisons Regulations (Cap 247, 2002 Rev Ed) (“the Prisons Regulations”), this authority did not extend to permitting the SPS to forward copies of such correspondence to the AGC.
3 Subsequently, Mr Datchinamurthy, Mr Gobi and eight others started HC/OS 975/2020 against the Attorney General (“AG”) for, among other things, leave to serve interrogatories regarding the passing of correspondence to the AGC by the SPS. The AGC then made voluntary disclosure of all correspondence which it had received from the SPS and this turned out to be correspondence involving the 13 Appellants in this appeal. That disclosure led to the initiation of the proceedings from which this appeal arises.
4 Correspondence belonging to the Appellants (68 individual documents in all) had been disclosed by the SPS to the AGC. This correspondence fell into various categories as follows: (a) correspondence with various public or governmental agencies (eg, letters to the Supreme Court Registry, the Singapore Police Force, to the President of Singapore); (b) correspondence with other organisations such as the Law Society of Singapore and the Malaysian High Commission; (c) correspondence between the Appellants and their counsel; and (d) letters from Mr Suhail to his uncle.
5 The Appellants filed HC/OS 188/2022 (“OS 188”) against the AG as the sole defendant on 25 February 2022. According to the amended originating summons filed on 9 June 2022, the Appellants sought the following: (a) a declaration that the AG acted ultra vires and unlawfully in requesting the disclosure of personal correspondence or information as to the contents of personal correspondence belonging to the First, Third and Eighth Appellants without the First, Third and Eighth Appellants’ consent (“Prayer 1”); (b) a declaration that the AG acted ultra vires and unlawfully when the SPS disclosed the Appellants’ correspondence particularly in respect of the correspondence belonging to the First to Thirteenth Appellants, not requested by the AGC but received from the SPS, without the Appellants’ consent (“Prayer 2”); (c) a declaration that the AG committed a breach of confidence by the disclosure and retention of confidential correspondence belonging to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Appellants (“Prayer 3”); (d) an order for damages and/or equitable relief, to be assessed at the hearing of OS 188, for the First to Thirteenth Appellants for breach of confidence (“Prayer 4”); (e) a declaration that the AG had infringed the Third, Fifth and Seventh Appellants’ copyright in their personal correspondence by the reproduction and retention of that correspondence (“Prayer 5”); (f) an order for nominal damages payable by the AG for infringement of copyright (“Prayer 6”); and (g) an order for such further and/or other reliefs as the court deemed fit.
6 On 1 July 2022, the Judge dismissed Prayers 1 to 5 of OS 188 by way of an oral judgment. In respect of Prayer 6, she granted nominal damages of $10 to the three appellants who had claimed for infringement of copyright. The Appellants appealed against the entirety of the Judge’s decision in OS 188 vide CA 30. CA 30 was eventually heard on 10 May 2024, which was the fourth hearing of the appeal following a series of adjournments.
Decision
Observations on the disclosure of correspondence
7 The court first set out what it referred to as “the Practice” explaining how most documents came to be disclosed to the AGC. Essentially, the Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) and SPS typically scheduled executions for Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment when no relevant proceedings were pending that would require postponement. As part of this process, they regularly shared documents with the AGC, seeking advice on any legal matters that might affect the execution timeline. This approach stemmed from the fact that the prison officers handling these cases were not legally trained, so they forwarded any potentially legal documents to the AGC for review, wanting to ensure that all legal aspects were properly considered before proceeding with an execution: at [26] and [27].
8 The court observed that almost all the disclosures were explainable by the Practice, as the documents concerned past, pending or contemplated proceedings arising from the Appellants’ convictions and sentences and the dismissal of the appeals against such convictions and sentences. Such actions or contemplated actions took the form of complaints against former counsel, requests for legal assistance, or related to correspondence over clemency applications. There were, however, some instances of disclosure which had not occurred pursuant to the Practice. As the Respondent explained, the disclosures of the abovementioned correspondence arose from the MHA or the SPS having wanted to obtain the AGC’s advice on how to respond to requests made by or on behalf of the Appellants: at [28].
9 There was one more significant disclosure that fell outside the Practice. This was the disclosure to the AGC of letters from the First Appellant, Mr Suhail, to his uncle in March and May 2017. The court observed that it was hard to reconcile the fact that the Deputy Public Prosecutors handling Mr Suhail’s unsuccessful criminal appeal in CA/CCA 38/2015 (“CCA 38”) had “requested copies of [Mr Suhail’s] previous correspondence with his uncle from the SPS” with the statement that “[t]he AGC did not consider itself entitled to these letters”. The court noted that the handling of Mr Suhail’s correspondence, together with the existence of the Practice, gave rise to some concern. Nevertheless, it highlighted that the effect which the disclosure of the correspondence concerned could have had on the criminal proceedings in CCA 38 and other cases was not a concern arising directly in the appeal which was focussed on the bearing that such disclosure had on the private law remedies available to the Appellants: at [29] to [34].
Administrative law remedies
Prayers 1 and 2: Declaration that the AGC acted unlawfully in requesting the disclosure of the Appellants’ correspondence and that the SPS acted unlawfully in disclosing the same
10 As the court earlier held in Gobi, under the prevailing Prisons Act (Cap 247, 2002 Rev Ed) and Prisons Regulations (amended by way of Prisons (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S 533/2018) which inserted reg 127A), there was no legal basis on which SPS was permitted to disclose the personal correspondence of prisoners. Regulation 127A modifies the general expectation of confidentiality in correspondence for prisoners, permitting prison officers to read and copy all correspondence from or to prisoners unless they are from or to legal advisors. This modification is limited and does not permit the SPS to copy lawyer-client communications or to share any such correspondence with anyone, including the AGC. Consequently, it would be unlawful for the SPS to pass copies of prisoners' correspondence to the AGC, and equally unlawful for the AGC to receive or request such copies: at [37].
11 Notwithstanding the above, the court recognised that in certain circumstances, the SPS might need to disclose the contents of prisoners' letters to the relevant authorities to obtain legal or other advice to ensure the safety and good order of the prison or the public. However, such disclosures should be limited to the specific issue requiring advice, and the AGC should have systems in place to maintain the confidentiality of any documents disclosed for this purpose so that such documents are only disclosed to the officers tasked with providing the necessary advice to the SPS. The court noted that during the period when the Practice was in place, no such processes were adopted by the AGC to ensure the confidentiality of the documents disclosed. The court emphasised that this limited exemption would not permit the AGC to proactively request prisoners' correspondence to be disclosed to it: at [38].
The conditions for declaratory relief
12 Freestanding declaratory relief may be granted under O 15 r 16 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) under certain conditions: at [40].
13 The court first addressed the question of whether, post-Gobi, there can be said to be a real controversy as to the impropriety of the AGC’s conduct given the existing declaration to similar effect in Gobi. However, while Gobi addressed an isolated incident of disclosure, the present case involved an intentional and established practice of sharing prisoners' correspondence. The court considered that there was a significant difference between declaring individual disclosures unlawful and declaring an entire policy or practice unlawful, especially when the legality of such a policy had not been previously addressed. Therefore, the court disagreed with the Judge that there was no real controversy warranting a declaration: at [43].
14 On the question of whether granting a declaration was justified in the circumstances of the case, the court found that a declaration would be of value to the parties and to the public in affirming the importance of a prisoner's ownership of their correspondence and their right to maintain confidentiality and privacy within legal bounds. The court noted that a prisoner's general interest in written communications should not be displaced unless necessary for security or operational reasons: at [46].
15 Despite steps taken by the AGC and the SPS to remedy the situation, the court concluded that a declaration of the unlawfulness of the Practice would be valuable to prisoners and the public. Consequently, the court granted two declarations: first, that the AGC's requests for disclosure of the First, Third and Eighth Appellant’s correspondence without the consent of those Appellants were unlawful; and second, that the SPS acted unlawfully in disclosing the Appellants' correspondence to the AGC, whether under the Practice or otherwise, without legal necessity, a court order, or the Appellants' consent: at [47].
Breach of confidence
Prayer 3: Declaration for breach of confidence
16 In relation to the elements of a claim for breach of confidence, the plaintiff must first establish that: (i) the information in question has the necessary quality of confidence about it; and (ii) it has been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. Where confidential information has been accessed or acquired without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, an obligation of confidence will also be found. If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing both requirements (i) and (ii), a breach of confidence is presumed to exist, and the legal burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that its conscience was unaffected by the breach: at [50].
17 The court proceeded to examine the documents disclosed, which fell into two categories: (a) those that did not give rise to a breach of confidence; and (b) those that did: [53].
Disclosures which did not give rise to a breach of confidence
18 There were various letters written to the Supreme Court dealing with cases in which the AG was the counterparty and also with other matters not involving the AG. Additionally, some letters were written to judges and the Singapore Police Force. The court found no expectation of confidentiality arose in relation to such correspondence: at [54] and [55].
19 There were five pieces of correspondence relating to certain clemency petitions. Four were letters to the court and one was a letter to the President of Singapore. From an objective viewpoint, the Appellants who wrote them could not have expected that the letters would be kept away from the Public Prosecutor: at [58].
Disclosures which gave rise to a breach of confidence
20 All letters the Appellants wrote to or received from their counsel or lawyers who they wished to instruct were subject to legal advice privilege and/or litigation privilege and must have been written and received in the expectation of confidentiality: at [59].
21 All correspondence with bodies like the Law Society regarding complaints against counsel and requests for advice and assistance. All such correspondence was also covered by an expectation of confidentiality: at [60].
22 The correspondence which Mr Suhail had with his uncle, four letters in all, also falls within this category where disclosure was a breach of confidence. The letters were confidential documents protected by litigation privilege for they came into existence for the dominant purpose of litigation: at [61].
23 The court found that the conscience of the AGC and the SPS were affected in respect of the disclosures of the documents mentioned above. Accordingly, the court granted a declaration in respect of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Appellants that the Respondent committed a breach of confidence by the disclosure and retention of confidential information belonging to them: at [62] and [63].
Prayer 4: Remedies for breach of confidence
Remedies arising from criminal proceedings
24 The Appellants suggested that there would be damages claimable in respect of criminal proceedings which had been unfairly tainted by disclosure of their correspondence. However, to the extent that fair determination of the Appellants’ convictions or sentences may have been affected by the disclosure of their correspondence, or that there may have been a breach of the rules of natural justice in criminal proceedings, these were matters for criminal review proceedings rather than the present civil appeal: at [66] and [67].
Appellants’ proposed process for assessing damages
25 The court rejected the Appellants’ reliance on an article on the remedial practice of the International Criminal Court to advance a two-tiered process for the assessment of damages. Among other reasons, such an approach would be undesirable in the local context as it would effectively bypass the need for the relevant appellant to make an application for permission to review and the granting of permission on that application (as required under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) and the Rules of Court 2021): at [68] and [69].
Punitive damages
26 The court rejected the Appellants’ claim for punitive damages. There were no local decisions awarding punitive damages for a breach of confidence, which lies outside the traditional domain of such damages in tort law. The Appellants also did not provide any legal basis in their submissions on which this court could rely to extend punitive damages to a claim for breach of confidence. Even assuming that punitive damages were available, the Appellants’ failure to seek punitive damages for a breach of confidence in their originating summons below was fatal to their claim: at [71] and [72].
Equitable damages
27 Though the Appellants did not expressly seek the same, the court saw no basis for the award of equitable compensation, equitable damages, or an account of profits: at [75].
28 The Appellants were also not entitled to equitable compensation for mental distress. The general principle at common law is that emotional or mental distress is not actionable: at [76].
Copyright
Prayer 5: Declaration of infringement of copyright
29 The court found that the Judge did not err in ordering that nominal damages of $10 ought to be payable to the First, Fifth and Seventh Appellants, and that no declaration of infringement of copyright need be granted. It would be obvious from the award of nominal damages itself that there had been a technical infringement of copyright, making any declaration superfluous: at [84] and [85].
Conclusion
30 The court, therefore, granted declarations that the AGC and the SPS had acted unlawfully by, respectively, requesting and disclosing the Appellants’ correspondence pursuant to the Practice. The court also found that the SPS and the AGC acted in breach of confidence by, respectively, the disclosure and retention of the Appellants’ correspondence pursuant to the Practice. However, the court declined to grant Prayers 4 and 5 of OS 188, or to vary the Judge’s decision that nominal damages of $10 for breach of copyright are payable to each of the First, Fifth and Seventh Appellants. The court made no order as to costs on the basis that while the Appellants have succeeded on appeal in respect of Prayers 1, 2 and 3 of OS 188, they have been unsuccessful in their appeals against the Judge’s decision in respect of Prayers 4, 5 and 6: at [100] and [101].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.
Who were the appellants in Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 39?
The appellants were thirteen prisoners in Changi Prison, including Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin, Gobi a/l Avedian and Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, who had been convicted on various charges. They complained that Singapore Prison Services and the Attorney-General's Chambers had breached their right to confidentiality under civil law.
Which judges decided Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 39?
The Court of Appeal panel comprised Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Judith Prakash SJ, with Judith Prakash SJ delivering the judgment of the court. The appeal in Civil Appeal No 30 of 2022 was decided on 11 October 2024 after hearings across 2023 and 2024.
Statutes Cited
Prisons Act
Cases on this Act →
s 84(1)
Cases Cited (41)
SG (7)
[1999] SGHC 302 [2000] SGCA 26 [2014] SGHC 234 [2017] SGCA 34 [2021] SGHC 270 [2022] SGCA 46 [2024] SGCA 37
SLR (30)
[1995] 3 SLR(R) 233 [1997] 1 SLR(R) 52 [2005] 4 SLR(R) 561 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 367 [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814 [2012] 4 SLR 476 [2013] 3 SLR 631 [2013] 4 SLR 1 [2015] 1 SLR 163 [2015] 4 SLR 474 [2015] 5 SLR 1071 [2017] 1 SLR 918 [2017] 2 SLR 129 [2018] 2 SLR 655 [2018] 5 SLR 349 [2018] 5 SLR 894 [2019] 1 SLR 1185 [2020] 1 SLR 1083 [2020] 1 SLR 1130 [2020] 2 SLR 883 [2021] 1 SLR 159 [2021] 4 SLR 698 [2022] 1 SLR 689 [2022] 2 SLR 1156 [2022] 2 SLR 280 [2022] 3 SLR 1211 [2022] 5 SLR 113 [2024] 1 SLR 239
UK (4)
[1964] AC 1129 [1982] 1 WLR 1155 [1982] AC 173 [2006] 2 AC 395
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 ([2024] SGCA 39)