PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v PEK LIAN GUAN

[2026] SGHC 62 High Court (General Division) 23 March 2026 HC/MA 9196/2024/01 · HC/MA 9197/2024/01 177 min read
81 cases cited (68 SG, 13 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Key facts

Court High Court (General Division)
Decided
Judge Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim Criminal Law, Courts and Jurisdiction

Source: [2026] SGHC 62, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Parties (3)

Case Significance

In Public Prosecutor v Pek Lian Guan and another appeal [2026] SGHC 62, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon delivered a reserved judgment on 23 March 2026 addressing twin Magistrate's Appeals (MA 9196/2024 and MA 9197/2024) brought by the Public Prosecutor against Pek Lian Guan and Pay Teow Heng, each of whom faced two charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment — which cites 81 authorities, 68 Singaporean and 13 foreign — is notable for its extended treatment of the open-justice principle and the constitutional function of public court proceedings, articulating how justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done under s 8(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. The matter was heard on 22 July 2025 and has already been cited by two subsequent decisions. The judgment situates the open-justice principle within the broader framework of judicial legitimacy and public trust in the Judiciary.

[2026] SGHC 62 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v PEK LIAN GUAN ([2026] SGHC 62) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 23 March 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Courts and Jurisdiction. 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 [2026] SGHC 62 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v PEK LIAN GUAN ([2026] SGHC 62) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Appeal” and “Courts and Jurisdiction — Court judgments”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 62 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and Pay and Pek each faced two charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 62 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 222. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2026] SGHC 62?

Within this corpus, [2026] SGHC 62 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.

What principle does Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon elaborate on in Public Prosecutor v Pek Lian Guan [2026] SGHC 62?

Chief Justice Menon uses the twin corruption appeals against Pek Lian Guan and Pay Teow Heng to elaborate the open-justice principle — that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done — grounded in s 8(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 and the Judiciary's constitutional legitimacy.

How many authorities does the judgment in Public Prosecutor v Pek Lian Guan [2026] SGHC 62 cite?

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon's 23 March 2026 judgment in the twin Prevention of Corruption Act appeals cites 81 authorities in total — 68 Singapore decisions and 13 foreign cases — making it one of the more extensively referenced High Court judgments in this batch.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (81)

SG (5)
[2001] SGHC 49 [2020] SGHC 187 [2022] SGCA 42 [2023] SGCA 31 [2024] SGHC 222
SLR (63)
[1989] 1 SLR(R) 346 [1990] 2 SLR(R) 634 [1992] 3 SLR(R) 1 [1993] 3 SLR(R) 407 [1995] 2 SLR(R) 124 [2005] 2 SLR(R) 425 [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157 [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263 [2005] 4 SLR(R) 604 [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 [2007] 1 SLR(R) 95 [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101 [2010] 1 SLR 733 [2010] 2 SLR 1 [2011] 1 SLR 1093 [2011] 1 SLR 998 [2011] 3 SLR 1205 [2012] 1 SLR 676 [2012] 3 SLR 34 [2012] 4 SLR 947 [2013] 1 SLR 125 [2014] 1 SLR 586 [2014] 2 SLR 1189 [2014] 3 SLR 180 [2014] 3 SLR 524 [2014] 4 SLR 759 [2015] 3 SLR 488 [2015] 5 SLR 1422 [2016] 2 SLR 713 [2016] 4 SLR 768 [2018] 1 SLR 1 [2018] 2 SLR 1156 [2019] 5 SLR 433 [2020] 1 SLR 486 [2020] 1 SLR 984 [2021] 2 SLR 1198 [2021] 2 SLR 308 [2021] 5 SLR 860 [2022] 1 SLR 1033 [2022] 1 SLR 1080 [2022] 2 SLR 595 [2022] 2 SLR 676 [2022] 2 SLR 778 [2022] 3 SLR 447 [2022] 4 SLR 1133 [2023] 2 SLR 235 [2023] 5 SLR 241 [2024] 1 SLR 32 [2024] 3 SLR 1370 [2024] 5 SLR 706 [2024] 6 SLR 410 [2024] 6 SLR 480 [2025] 1 SLR 1287 [2025] 1 SLR 576 [2025] 1 SLR 806 [2025] 2 SLR 176 [2025] 2 SLR 273 [2025] 4 SLR 657 [2025] 4 SLR 69
UK (12)
[1913] AC 417 [1924] 1 KB 256 [1962] AC 322 [1991] 2 AC 93 [2000] 1 WLR 377 [2005] EWCA Civ 1041 [2013] EWCA Civ 587 [2015] EWCA Civ 834 [2018] EWCA Civ 468 [2020] 1 WLR 2455 [2022] 4 WLR 78 [2025] 1 WLR 5343
HK (1)
[2023] 6 HKC 411

Cited By (2)

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 62)