CHENG CHANG HUP v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Facts

Mr Cheng Chang Hup's sister, Ms Cheng, who had schizophrenia, died by suicide on 1 April 2022. A Coroner's Inquiry heard evidence including from the investigating officer and two Institute of Mental Health (IMH) psychiatrists, whom Mr Cheng questioned. Ms Cheng's boyfriend, Mr Chew, gave conditioned statements but was not called after he produced evidence that he was being treated for depression and anxiety. On 9 May 2025 the Coroner returned a finding of suicide, accepted the police conclusion that there was no foul play, and found the exact reason unclear. The Coroner observed that the couple's messages showed a very tumultuous relationship.

In Originating Application No 576 of 2025, Mr Cheng sought leave to apply for judicial review to quash the findings and obtain a fresh inquiry. He did not dispute that his sister died by suicide, but argued that the inquiry failed to probe whether Mr Chew provoked her, including missing phones and what he said were deleted messages, and whether the doctors' reduction of her Haloperidol dose from 5mg to 1.5mg contributed. In Summons No 1599 of 2025 he sought orders preserving Mr Chew's phone, held by the police.

Issues

1. Whether an injunction or declaration should be granted to preserve Mr Chew's phone.
2. Whether there was a prima facie case of procedural impropriety or illegality in the Coroner's inquiry.
3. Whether there was a prima facie case that the Coroner's findings were irrational.

Holding

The High Court dismissed both the application for leave to apply for judicial review and the summons for preservation of the phone, finding no arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of the remedies sought.

Reasoning

Section 27(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 bars injunctions against the Government. A declaration in lieu was also not justified: police forensic examination had extracted 5,000 SMS messages and 161,904 WhatsApp messages for the period Mr Cheng requested, found no deleted messages, and these were made available to him.

Under s 27 of the Coroners Act 2010, an inquiry establishes identity and how, when and where the deceased died, and must not decide criminal, civil or disciplinary liability. Following Selvi d/o Narayanasamy v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 458, relevant circumstances must be proximate to the death. The Coroner answered those questions. There was no procedural impropriety, since Mr Cheng attended and questioned the doctors. The Coroner had considered the missing phones, the messages, the bags, the doctors' reasons and the video logs, so relevant matters were not ignored.

Applying Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter [2016] 1 SLR 779, nothing was so absurd that no reasonable decision-maker could reach it. The doctors explained the dose was reduced because she was not taking the higher dose, and whether that was negligent was a civil question beyond the inquiry. Disagreement with the findings was not a ground to quash them.

From the judgment